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

It has been a go since the European Union (EU) issued a 10-year eject of U. S. merchandiseed grouse handle with ductless gland additives. The primary reason organize by EU was the detail that scientific advertisers atomic number 18 convinced the ductless gland additives in crab be harmful to hu piece wellness (James, Barry 1999). Despite the dierence that the World job Organization (WTO), the international body that regulates international trade policies and laws, ruled let out the ban, the EU preferred to defy such ruling. much(prenominal) a vital sparing event posed multi-faceted bequeaths in the international relations of both(prenominal) nations economic, political, ethical and cultural relations. The main point is non the ban itself, rather, it is the situation that there has been no solid scientific exhibits yet work uped by the EU before it ordered the ban on US endocrine gland- hard-boiled beef. In fact, three neutral members of the WTO panel arbitrat ors ruled that the EUs decade-old ban on the import of hormone-treated beef broke global trade rules (Thompson, Sharon R.1999 cited in Orr, Rena 2001). This paper volition focus on the wellness gum elastic of hormone-treated beef exported by U. S. to the EU. In this premise, this paper bequeath present facts and figures that will prove the unhazardousty claims relation to hormone additives using scientific studies by the representatives of both nations. The events leading up to the ban on the domestic phthisis of hormones in kine rise and on imports of hormone-treated beef be important in explaining the political high rank 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 abscission their political teeth on issues that appe ard to resonate with public opinion. The beef-hormone controversy was do to measure for t hese organizations. Trade concerns were not dominant in the early years, and the disciplines employ by trade rules were in any case weak.European livestock producers were look for for ways to stimulate ontogenesis in cattle, and took eagerly to the intent of hormones, but some measure with inadequate k right awayledge of the consequences of misuse of such chemicals. Regulatory witness sometimes slipped between the cracks, as coordination and harmonization of national regulations progressed haltingly in the European Union. The unify States has near 90% of its beef production elevated with growth hormones (capital of Minnesotason, Michael 1999).Growth hormones atomic number 18 injected to cattle for the purpose of enhancing muscle and fat growth and thereby completely(prenominal)owing cattle to produce more milk (Bald, Renee and Bill Bigelow 2002). The work out is as simple as injecting tiny pellets of these hormones into the ears of the cattle (Jacobs, Paul 1999). Such h ormones ar sanctioned and permitted to be legally employ as per federal laws by ranchers in producing meaty and lean cows (Paulson, Michael 1999).There atomic number 18 by and large six types of hormones utilise in beef production and three of these are intrinsic awake hormones- testosterone, progesterone and ooestradiol-17 beta (Bald, Renee and Bill Bigelow 2002). In the fact sheet published by wellness Canada (2005), hormonal growth elicitrs are defined and explained as follows Hormonal growth promoters are by nature 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 trim back and since fat is so energy dense, nutrient conversion efficiency is increased. The result is a healthier product which is produced at a lower embody to the consumer. The fact sheet a same(p) defined the growth hormone somatotropic hormone as a naturally occurring nub in both human beings and wolfs. It is responsible for skeletal, organ and cell growth and Recombinant bovine somatotrophic hormone (rBST) as 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 synthetic rubber of growth promoters has been confirmed by the codex Alementarius. Codex Alementarius with FAO/WHO near committee on intellectual nourishment Additives recommended minimum routine intake of 17 beta estradiol, progesterone and testosterone but maximum equaliser limit was not indicated (Orr, Rena 2001). This means that the available data on the identicalness and concentration of counterpoises of the ex-serviceman dose in animal tissues indicate a wide margin of safety for consumption of residues in feed when the drug is used according to good practice in the use of old stagererinary drugs (ibid).As background information, the Codex program is under the supervision and sponsorship of the World Health Organization and the feed and kitchen-gardening Organization. The state program aims to develop food centers that would fit the requirements or needs of participating nations of which as of 2001 as already 150 nations. Primarily, Codex program targets to minimize non-tariff trade barriers. Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), on the opposite hand is an fencesitter 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 cerebrate that the presence of drug residues does not present health concern and does not pose any health gamble to humans (JECFA Fifty- encourage Meeting abridgment and Conclusions, 1999 cited in Orr, Rena 2001). In addition, JECFA concluded that there is no need to esta blish 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 meaning Production (1995) confirmed growth promoters are safe (Galvin, Timothy US Dept of market-gardening, 2000). Timothy Galvin is the Administrator of Foreign awkward Service of US part of Agriculture. In his narration before the Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation and Rural Revitalization, Galvin accent that the EUs ban ignores a body of scientific depict showing that the growth promotants in question are safe when used in accordance with good animal husbandry practices (Galvin, 2000).Studies in the operate four decades hurl confirmed that the right(a) use of these compounds, according to approved registered labels, poses no risk to human or animal health. EUs own Scientific Conference on Growth Promotants held in 1995 reached the sam e conclusion (BBC in the altogethersworthiness 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 practice.With this, there should have been no reason to preserve with the ban. In addition, they pointed out that EU already presented these arguments to an unprejudiced WTO dispute-settlement panel in 1997 and lost and even in its appeal a year after (ibid). Galvin (2000) also stressed in his statement 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 likely evidence to indicate that there are health risks associated with hormone-treated beef. The US Food Administration, farming 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 posterior for the ban. Perceptions are disciplinely different from scientifically prove evidences of health risks. consort to Bureau of Consumer Unions based in Brussels, EU consumers are demanding risk-free foods because of the phobic neurosis 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 deep-rooted or not (Q&A Growth Promoting endocrine glands, cited in Orr 2001). Aside from this, the National Cattlemen backbite linkup (2001) stressed that the amount of estrogen in plant-source foods is larger than in meat.A standa rd 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 beef 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 screak Association as utter 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 on 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 As sociation cited in Orr, Rena 2001).What often is not recognized is that the natural levels that are found in other animal foods, such as testicle 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. subdivision of Agriculture. Dan Glickman, the U. S. secretary of agriculture, also insists that 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 lineage organisationful 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 contagious disease in cattle. Although this is admittedly, 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).Such hormones are feared as endocrine disrupters which was explained by an American scientist as having an effect in the process of cell cultivation but does not have solid explanation as to how it sincerely works as of this moment (Sonnenschein, Carlos cited in Barry, James 1999). The scientist explained that 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. Lacking proof, the EU can only render back on o bserved effects, such as the specific dispersion 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 used 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 vegetable marrow 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 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 interesting fact stated by the authors Because the ear is discarded at harvest, the implant does not make it 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 shock on weight gain when such hormone will be administered beyond required dosage. Avery (et. al. 2008) also stressed that USDA is conducting annual supervise of hormone admini stration 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 human body, such dosage is comparatively low level.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 JECFAs 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 Add itives. 1999 cited in Avery, et. al. 2008). In a separate study, the US segment of Agriculture (USDA), stated that 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 single egg and that a deoxyephedrine 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 purchase 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 critique 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 (bacteria and pesticides) (Kramer and Penner, cited in Lusk, et. al. 2003). In a separate study, by the Food Marketing work 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 ergonomics, 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 heal th risk (Hoban 1996). An experimental auction found that consumers determined 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 feed a premium to exchange a bag of GM clavus chips for a bag of non-GM lemon chips but 20% were willing to render at least $. 20/oz in exchange (Lusk, et. al. 2003). EUs 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 cowsare 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-tenth 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 go on 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 holding 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. 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 able to export more than 80 percent of what is being trade 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 defect 22, 2008 from http//www. thecattlesite. com/articles/1240/the-environmental-safety-and-benefits-of-growth-enhancing-pharmaceutical-technologies-in-beef-production Bald, Renee and Bill Bigelow (2002). The Beef Hormone Controversy Whose needy Trade? Retrieved on March 09, 2008 from http//www. rethinkingschools. org/publication/rg/RGBeef. s hypertext mark-up language 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, washbowl 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 diary 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 (20 01). 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 Subjects to endogenetic 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 wedlock America Food Animal Practice. Vol 15 No 1, 181-195 in Orr, Rena (2001). Growth-promoting