Should Beef And Poultry Be Free of Growth Hormones?

Growth stimulating hormones are a key constituent of production systems across the world. Since the 1950s, hormones have proven favorable not only to beef production, but also to the consumers and environments. It is important to note that while the use of hormones accrues several advantages to beef production, it is not a favorable method in enhancing poultry production because of the risks involved and the absolute lack of any advantage with the use of the
same. The consumers benefit from lower costs of beef production and the environment benefits from a more efficient use of scarce resources. Simply put, hormones enable us to produce more beef with fewer inputs. This is particularly a good thing in the contemporary resourced-stressed world, where every effort is towards the conservation of the environment and the exploitation of only just enough to ensure some remain for the future generations. Some of the most renowned food safety authorities have studied the production of beef using hormones and have found the products safe for human consumption. This is an endeavor spanning more than 50-years. Some of the organizations that share this view about hormones include the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) of the United States, Health Canada, Codex Alimentarius Committee of the WTO (World Trade Organization), FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) of the United Nations, WHO (World Health Organization), and the EAC (European Agriculture Commission).
Should Beef and Poultry Be Free of Growth Hormones?
This statement stands controversial, as conflicting schools of thoughts describe the issue contrarily. The use of hormones in beef has some obvious benefits and unproved disadvantages that lack scientific backing (The University of Georgia 1). The available statistics prove that the use of hormones enable the production of higher quality carcasses, and increases the rate of muscle development. The use of hormones increases the growth rate of higher-level, multi-cellar organisms. In poultry, the use of the hormones is not feasible because of the high cost attributed to the administration. However, scientists have discovered alternative methods for achieving increased productivity in poultry. Scientific studies, experimenting with the use of hormones to increase the growth rate of animals reveal that hormone treated chickens have derive no growth rate advantage when compared to non-treated chickens. The advantage accrued using hormones in the production of chicken does not cover the cost of administrating the hormones. However, the reasons are not only commercial but also physiological (The University of Georgia 1).
Scientists have bred chicken to a point that they grow at a rate bordering the physiological maximum. This renders the use of hormones in the production of chicken non-feasible because it increases the rate of heart and vital organ failure in the chickens. Instead of using hormones to enhance the productivity of chickens, scientist use transgenic animals. Transgenic animals are genetically engineered animals that carry a known sequence of DNA and the capacity to transmit the DNA to its offspring. The design focuses on specific genes that code for particular proteins. The enhanced genetic performance is coupled with production in a controlled environment. Poultry production is carried out in built environments to protect the birds from the weather, diseases, and predators. These production techniques enhance efficiency and reduce labor requirements. However, challenges exist with handling the large amounts of manure produced in a small area (The University of Georgia 2).
Anabolic substances are administrated in the form of deposit capsules under the skin of the animal. Five common types of hormones are used to promote the growth of animals. Out of the five hormones, three are naturally occurring hormones and include testosterone, estradiol 17-b, and progesterone. The other two (zeranol. 3 and trenbolone) are synthetically produced mimic hormones that imitate the function of naturally occurring hormones. The economic benefits of hormone application are most evident in large-scale beef production wherein the time it takes for an animal to achieve slaughter weight, and the amount of feed the animal consumes are paramount in determining profits (FDA) (Holmes, 65). Hormone-treated animals grow 15% faster and cost the same percentage less to produce. This saves the farmer more than 50 dollar per animal. Hormone treated animals produce meat with less fat content, and the beef takes shorter periods to process and prepare. The reduced processing requirements save the processing company more than 10% of the normal processing cost. Beef produced using hormones is low in saturated fats and cost less, which is beneficial to consumers (Avery & Avery 6).
When considering the issue of hormones in beef production, the first question that always arises in the minds of the consumers is whether it is safe for human consumptions. Safety features incorporated in the use of hormones in cattle include the use of time-release implants except for MGA, which is administrated through feeds. According to the FDA regulations, hormones are placed beneath the hide of an animals ear (Avery & Avery 7). The implant holds a predetermined amount of hormones and releases it into the animals body relatively slowly, ensuring the hormonal levels within the animals bloodstream remain low. At the slaughterhouse, the ear containing the implant is discarded, which ensures it does not enter the food chain (Lusk, & John 27). This validation supports the use of hormones in beef production. As each of the implant contains the optimum amount of hormones required by the animal to achieve its full potential, administrating more than one capsule simultaneously would have or has no economic gain. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) also runs an annual monitoring program that ensures the use of hormones according to the set regulations (Kerr & Hobbs 285).
The hormone doses used to treat the animals are typically very small. In most cases, the concentrations are lower than that of naturally occurring hormones in the animal or the human body. For example, according to the USDA, an individual would require to consume nearly six kilograms of beef from an imbedded animal to consume as much estradiol as is present in an egg. The human body produces the same hormones in amounts that are hundreds of times higher (Beaudin). For example, the amount of estradiol present in a pound of beef is nine million times less than that produced by an expectant woman every day. This justification supports the use of hormones in beef production. Some of the most prominent agricultural organizations in the world have carried out the worst-case scenarios to test the effect of over consumption of these growth-enhancing hormones in humans (Kerr and Hobbs 286) and the findings indicate no measurable risk for humans. However, the E.U, one of the major trade partners to U.S.A and Canada continues to ban the import of beef from the two countries because of the application of hormones.
The E.U bases its claims on the Copenhagen Assessment. The Copenhagen Assessment includes a series of studies conducted in Europe in which animals received three to tenfold the amount of hormones allowed for the production of consumer beef in North America (Kiplinger 1). According to the E.U, Canada and the United States cannot guarantee that the practice is not happening in the production of beef. However, the USDA monitoring services indicate no evidence to support the E.U claims (Caduff 15). Analysis carried out by the WHO experts on animals treated with these unlikely high doses of hormones reveal that only the liver of the cow is not fit for human consumption. Despite the overwhelming evidence attesting the use of hormones in the production of beef is safe, the E.U continues to ban the sale of beef from North America in Europe (Kerr & Hobbs 287).
The E.U case is clearly not an issue caused by viable scientific data. Despite the clear evidence, policy makers always have to weigh the options in a social environment that has preferences, which are independent of scientific data (Caduff 6). The environmental safety of the growth-promoting hormones is also satisfactory. The naturally occurring hormones have no measurable effect on the environment because they are easily broken down in the body of the animal. The synthetic hormones have a very short half-life and have no significant effect on the environment where the manure of the treated animals is deposited (Osborne 23).
Conclusion
Many consumers are confused about the use of hormones in the production of beef and poultry. Perhaps the packaging labels contribute to the confusion in part because some of the companies label their products as hormone free. While it is possible to produce poultry and beef without adding hormones, it is impossible to produce hormone free beef and poultry because hormones occur naturally in all living organisms. In the case of poultry, no hormones are used to produce the animals. The increase in bird size is because of the improved breeding techniques, nutrition, and care. The techniques ensure the birds with the greatest potential reproduce in environments that encourage the expression of the birds traits. The use of hormones in poultry production is legal and has no measurable advantages. The use of hormones in beef is legal and has several advantages. The use of hormones in beef production increases the growth rate of the animals, reduce the cost of production, and improves the quality of the carcasses because hormone treated animals are low in saturated fats.
 Works Cited
Avery Alex and Avery Dennis. The Environmental safety and Benefits of Growth Enhancing Pharmaceutical Technologies in Beef Production. Hudson Institute, Center for Global Food Issues. 2010. <http://www.cgfi.org/pdfs/nofollow/beef-eco-benefits-paper.pdf>
Beaudin, Monique. "Are Growth Hormones Making our Beef Unsafe?:" Observer: 0. Jan 13 2001. ProQuest. Web. 23 Mar. 2014 .
Caduff Ladina. Growth hormones and Beyond. Center for International Studies (CIS), Working Paper 8-2002. <http://www.ib.ethz.ch/docs/working_papers/wp_2002_08.pdf>
FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). Animal and veterinary. Product Safety Information, 2014. Web. 19 March 2014. <http://www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/safetyhealth/productsafetyinformation/ucm055436.htm>
Holmes, Peter. "The WTO Beef Hormones Case: A Risky Decision?" Consumer Policy Review 10.2 (2000): 61-71. ProQuest. Web. 23 Mar. 2014.
Kerr, William A. and Hobbs, Jills E. The North America-European Union Dispute Over Beef Produced Using Growth Hormones: A Major Test for the New International Trade Regime. New Jersey: Blackwell Publishers. 2002. Print. <http://are.berkeley.edu/courses/EEP131/old_files/HormonesKerrandHobbs.pdf>
Kiplinger. "Battle Looming on Beef Produced with Hormones." The Kiplinger Agricultural Letter 70.8 (1999): 1. ProQuest. Web. 23 Mar. 2014.
Lusk, Jayson L., and John A. Fox. "Consumer Demand for Mandatory Labeling of Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones Or Fed Genetically Modified Corn." Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 34.1 (2002): 27.
Osborne, K. Hormones in meat SCIENCE or SPIN? Australasian Science, 32, (2011): 22-24. < http://www.australasianscience.com.au/article/issue-may-2011/hormones-meat-science-or-spin.html>
The University of Georgia. Seven Reasons Why Chickens are Not Fed Hormones. Poultry Housing tips 24.4 (2012): 1-2. Print. https://www.poultryventilation.com/sites/default/files/tips/2012/vol24n4.pdf