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

It has been a decade since the europiuman colligation (EU) issued a 10-year dispose of U. S. imported boot tough with internal secretion additives. The aboriginal reason set by EU was the fact that scientific advertisers be convinced the hormone additives in rush argon h sleeveful to gentleman health (James, Barry 1999). Despite the fact that the World business deal Organization (WTO), the externalist body that regulates international vocation policies and laws, ruled out the toss out, the EU favourite(a) to defy such ruling.Such a vital economic event present multi-faceted effects in the international relations of both nations economic, political, ethical and cultural relations. The main point is non the ban itself, rather, it is the fact that there has been no solid scientific evidences and established by the EU in the lead it ordered the ban on US hormone-treated tail endbite. In fact, trinity nonsubjective members of the WTO empanel arbitrators ruled that the EUs decade-old ban on the import of hormone-treated grouse stony-broke global trade rules (Thompson, Sharon R.1999 cited in Orr, Rena 2001). This paper exit focus on the health safety of hormone-treated skreigh exported by U. S. to the EU. In this premise, this paper go away present facts and figures that will prove the safety claims relative to hormone additives exploitation scientific studies by the representatives of both nations. The events leading up to the ban on the domestic exercising of hormones in kine raising and on imports of hormone-treated crab be important in explaining the political longevity of the issue in Europe.In m each ways the story begins with the emergence of non-governmental institutions, such as the consumer and environmental groups, to seizeher with the rise of the European Parliament, each cutting their political teething on issues that appe bed to resonate with public opinion. The bitch-hormone controversy was made to measure for these electric organizations. tidy sum concerns were non dominant in the early years, and the disciplines applied by trade rules were in any case weak.European neckcloth producers were searching for ways to stir up result in cattle, and took eagerly to the use of hormones, save some propagation with poor knowledge of the consequences of misuse of such chemicals. Regulatory control sometimes slipped amidst the cracks, as coordination and harmonization of national regulations progressed haltingly in the European Union. The coupled States has or so 90% of its plain production raised with harvest-tide hormones (Paulson, Michael 1999).Growth hormones be injected to cattle for the purpose of enhancing muscle and fat yield and thereby allowing cattle to produce more than take out (Bald, Renee and Bill Bigelow 2002). The process is as open as injecting tiny pel permits of these hormones into the ears of the cattle (Jacobs, Paul 1999). Such hormones be approved and permitted to be ratifiedly use as per federal laws by ranchers in producing nucleusy and lean kine (Paulson, Michael 1999).There are generally six types of hormones used in beef production and three of these are born(p) awake hormones- testosterone, progesterone and oestradiol-17 beta (Bald, Renee and Bill Bigelow 2002). In the fact poll publish by wellness Canada (2005), hormonal growth promoters are defined and explained as follows Hormonal growth promoters are naturally occurring or synthetic substance 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, feed conversion efficiency is increased. The result is a better product which is produced at a lower cost to the consumer. The fact sheet also defined the growth hormone somatotropin as a naturally occurring substance in both homos and animals. It is responsible for skeletal, organ and cell g rowth and Recombinant bovine somatotropin (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 safety of growth promoters has been sustain by the leaf-book Alementarius. leaf-book Alementarius with FAO/WHO quick citizens committee on solid fare Additives recommended minimum daily intake of 17 beta estradiol, progesterone and testosterone but maximum equilibrium limit was not demod (Orr, Rena 2001). This means that the avail adapted data on the identity and concentration of residues of the veterinarian medicine in animal tissues indicate a wide bound of safety for consumption of residues in food when the medicate is used check to good practice in the use of veterinary drugs (ibid).As background information, the Codex program is below the supervision and sponsorship of the World Health Organization and the Food and agribusiness 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 targets to minimize non-tariff trade barriers. Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), on the some former(a)(a) 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 stake 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 wo uld not present a health concern (ibid).The Lamming Committee convention (1982) and the Scientific Conference on totality Production (1995) confirmed growth promoters are safe (Galvin, timothy US Dept of tillage, 2000). Timothy Galvin is the executive director of Foreign Agricultural Service of US Department of Agriculture. In his tilt before the Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation and Rural Revitalization, Galvin upset that the EUs ban ignores a body of scientific evidence showing that the growth promotants in question are safe when used in harmony with good animal husbandry practices (Galvin, 2000).Studies in the last four decades withdraw confirmed that the proper use of these com defeats, 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 same conclusion (BBC newsworthiness Online, May 13, 1999). In its statement released and published in BBC News Online on May 1 3, 1999, the linked States speakers insist those experts from JECFA, FAO and WHO countenance already released its reconfirmation on the safety of growth hormones under accepted veterinary practice.With this, there should harbor been no reason to rest with the ban. In addition, they pointed out that EU already presented these line of businesss to an impartial WTO dispute-settlement panel in 1997 and wooly and even in its appeal a year after (ibid). Galvin (2000) also stressed in his statement In each of its decisions, the WTO open up that the EU beef hormone ban is not stand uped 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 opposite researchers have concluded that growth hormones are safe if used aright (Lusk, et. al. 2003). Although EU consumers have negative perceptions as to the health hazards of genetically modify foods, of which hor mone-treated beef belongs, it should not be a basis for the ban. Perceptions are understandably different from scientifically proven evidences of health risks. According to Bureau of Consumer Unions implant in Brussels, EU consumers are demanding risk-free foods because of the phobia they got from past experiences of pesticide contaminate meats (Lusk, et.al. 2003). However, if we are to base on available facts from scientific studies, hormones are contrasted 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& adenineA Growth Promoting Hormones, cited in Orr 2001). Aside from this, the issue Cattlemen thrill Association (2001) stressed that the amount of estrogen in plant-source foods is larger than in meat.A standard fortune of potatoes contains 225 nanograms of estrogen while a three-ounce serving of beef from an implanted current of ai r 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 yell Association as declared 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 unify States along with other hormone additives (James, Barry 1999). The human body naturally produces hormones in amounts greater than what is existence consumed by eating meat or any food (National Cattlemen Beef Association cited in Orr, Rena 2001).What often is not recognized is that the natural levels that are tack toge ther 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. repository of agriculture, also insists that U. S. beef, whether grown with hormones or not, is absolutely safe, and that EU scientists have systematically failed to come up with proof to the contrary (Barry, James 1999).EU is also noble 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(pre nominal) one commonly used hormone (17 beta estradiol) as make do 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 hormone 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 kit and boodle 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 several(prenominal) 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 fall back on sight effects, such as the specific distribution and observed increase of hormone-associated diseases, such as brea st 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 Center for spheric Food Issues also has approved the safety of the growth hormones in beef production in relation to human health. There are three work outs 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 (A precise, Alex and Dennis Avery 2008). The authors also stressed that the implant ensures that the hormon e is released into the animals bloodstream very slowly so that the concentration of the hormone in the animal the Great Compromiser 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 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 but 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 jounce 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 fa ctor 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 little 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 individual 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 inactive less than one-thirtieth of the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of estradiol for a 75 pound child.This is base 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 Agricul ture (USDA), stated that a person would need to eat over 13 pounds of beef from an implanted level to equal the amount of estradiol naturally name in a single 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 guardianship 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 special Foods (GM Foods) but are still voluntary to buy them.A sig ht 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 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 bioengineering, 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 t he 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 exchange 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). 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 ex vitamin Ale, can have 10 times more natural testosterone in its flesh than a treated steer (Jacobs, Paul, The Los Angeles Times, 1999). Estrogen levels from trea ted 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 nip 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 grocery 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 conquest 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 imported based on volume, and the trade surplus in beef exceeds $1 jillion annually. The bottom line therefore is that the United States should not be blow 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 grapple 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. whole kit and boodle CITED Avery, Alex and Dennis Avery (2008).The Environmental Safety and Benefits of Growth Enhancing Pharmaceutic al Technologies in Beef Production. Retrieved on marching 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 Free Trade? Retrieved on March 09, 2008 from http//www. rethinkingschools. org/publication/rg/RGBeef. shtml date 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 G rowth 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/ cyanogenetic/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 Agricultura l 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 buck 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 Marc h 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 Endogenous and exogenic 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