Introduction
Approximately 80% of all US meats undergo hormone treatment. This practice is legal and subject to FDA inspections. However, not all stakeholders agree that it is a harmless process. Consumers are at risk of getting cancer when they consume high doses of such meats. Additionally, some results indicate that girls have an increased risk of early puberty. Perhaps one of the relatively unknown effects is the increase in hormone residues in soil and water bodies. These have adverse implications on the organisms that depend on such ecosystems.
How hormones are used in US meats
The US government currently approves the use of three synthetic and three natural hormones in beef production. Testosterone, Progesterone, and Oestradiol belong to the naturally-occurring variety while Melengestrol, Zeranol, and Trenbolone represent the artificial variety. Farmers use these hormones in order to increase animal weight gain. Nonetheless, the same results are not prevalent in pigs and poultry. Therefore, the Federal Drug Administration does not approve the use of this product on such animals. A number of farmers use them to augment mutton production. It should be noted that the dairy industry depends on the use of rbGH for better milk production (Grace Communications Foundation 5).
Usually, most of these hormones are administered through implants that are placed at the back of the ear. During slaughter, that part of the body is treated as hazardous waste. Alternatively, some hormones may be ingested by animals through food; one such example is Melengestrol. Dairy farmers often introduce rbGH through injections under the skin. One must do so in single dosages in order to minimize overdose.
Effects on consumers
Some studies indicate that relatively low levels of residual hormones are present in meat. The FDA has set a threshold above which meats would be deemed unsafe for consumption. The Food Safety Inspection Service usually inspects to ensure that cattle keepers comply with these requirements. Furthermore, farmers have relatively little to gain from excessive dosages of hormones because the average increase in animal weight reduces dramatically after exceeding FDA-approved dosage levels. This gives farmers an incentive to stay within the confines of the law. On the basis of these low residues, the FDA has approved the use of these hormones in meat production. It believes that consumers will be subjected to minimal health risks when they use the product.
One should note that most of the studies that the authorities used to make their decisions were based on analyses of synthetic hormones. Since it is difficult to differentiate between natural hormones produced by the body and natural hormones introduced into the system, no studies are available on these residues. It is thus difficult to draw conclusions on this matter. Furthermore, analyses done on the use of rbGH in dairy are usually short-term analyses. It is necessary to look at the residue effects on consumers after relatively long periods of time.
Analyses in Italy and Puerto Rico tied hormone residues in meat to early puberty and breast enlargement. In the Puerto Rican study, girls who had reached puberty were found to have high levels of zeranol in their blood. However, some experts dispute these findings because they lack support from other laboratories. The Italian study found that steroid hormones in poultry and beef led to breast enlargement in girls. Nonetheless, no tests of actual meat samples occurred. These issues have led many to question the danger of hormone-treated meats. Regardless, these studies still indicate that there is cause for alarm.
Questions of susceptibility to breast cancer and other forms of cancer have also been raised in the consumption of hormone-raised meats. Minimal studies exist to prove that steroid hormones in meats lead to greater susceptibility to cancer. Scientists have not ventured into this area because cancer can take years to develop, yet some of these hormones have been in use for just a few years. Since no conclusive evidence exists to rule out or approve such meats, then consumers could be subjecting themselves to certain risks when they eat them. Only the banned DES hormone has been studied. It shows that women were at a forty percent higher risk of getting vaginal cancer if they consumed meats with DES than meat without it.
On the other hand, indirect studies indicate that endocrine-disrupting hormones like meat hormones are sufficiently troublesome. Certain population groups, like children, fetuses and infants are highly sensitive to exogenous hormones. A fetus that is exposed to these hormones may have developmental problems. Additionally, children who expose themselves to these chemicals will have a greater susceptibility to thyroid disease, prostate and breast cancer, uterine fibroids as well as infertility (Cornell University 19). Links to steroid hormones in the US beef industry have been made in a 2007 study. The analysis found that women who ate hormone-injected meats when pregnant had sons with low levels of sperm concentration. Therefore, concerns about fertility must be addressed. It is because of these concerns that the EU has banned the use of hormones. The region is aware of the adverse health effects that may emanate from the hormone even if residues are present in low amounts. Epigenetic changes can occur regardless of hormone concentration, and those processes lead to serious health implications. The US government’s assumption of safety rests on dated research and short-term analyses, which are not conclusive.
How cows are affected
Most of the dangers associated with hormone use in animal production relates to dairy farming. The hormone rbGH causes a number of health problems among cows. Animals that have this hormone are more likely than others to report heat stress. Birth disorders are a problem as well as hood defects. Some cases of diarrhea may be reported as well as increases in somatic cells. These animals also suffer from increased cases of mastitis or udder infections that cause them a lot of pain (American Public Health Association 15). Animal rights groups have heard about these effects and advocated for the elimination of this hormone in dairy production. A number of these lobbyists are also aware of the increased antibiotic resistance that emanates from the practice. The hormone causes livestock to become resistant to antibiotics. Farmers have to use more antibiotics when injecting those hormones in order to eradicate udder infections. As a result, animals become resistant to antibiotics, and their patterns can then be transmitted to humans who will also become susceptible to the same. Therefore, the use of hormones in dairy production creates an unnecessary risk that human beings can prevent.
Environmental implications
Pollution is one of the most underestimated effects of consumption of these types of meat. As stated earlier, some of the hormones can be ingested in animal feed. This means that their residues are excreted in the form of urine and dung. Feedlots have the potential to contaminate water sources due to surface runoff if they contain hormone residues. A study by Ana Soto and Louis Guillette of Florida and Tufts University found that hormonal activity was quite high in downstream feedlots compared to upstream ones. Some of the water samples from these areas had three or four times as much estrogenic and androgenic pollutants as the upstream samples. Fish that lived in downstream water sources were thus susceptible to deformities owing to these hormones. The scientists found that fish of the minnow variety had bumps on their heads when they were exposed to androgenic pollutants. Another analysis in Nebraska found that female fish became masculinized while their male counterparts had more female features; they had smaller testis than normal. Additionally, the sizes of their heads significantly reduced (Raloff 10). Therefore, hormone-laced runoff from feedlots is detrimental to surrounding ecosystems.
One of the other mechanisms in which the environment may be exposed to these pollutants is through manure. Scientists in Munich analyzed the manure of hormone-treated cattle over a period of one year. They found that a substantial portion of the hormones was present in their dung. They then collected the manure that these animals produced in order to determine whether the steroid hormones persisted. The stored manure had a half-life of about 260 days and was resistant to bacteria digestion when stored. However, when farmers took it to the field, the hormones in the fertilizer lasted for about two months. These hormones disappeared as a result of microbial breakdown as well as surface runoff. Most of the residues thus settled in low-lying plains as well as water bodies in plateaus. The dangers of these residues cannot be taken lightly as a Clemson University analysis found. Runoff from manure that was laced with hormones caused turtles to produce an unhealthy amount of eggs. Even their males start to make egg-yolk protein.
The environmental effects of hormone use in meat production are not as widely publicized as effects on consumers. However, these results are just as alarming as the former. When pollutants get into the water, one must care about their implications in marine organisms. This is especially true for processes that can be prevented or are unnecessary. It is unlikely that hormone use may be completely phased out. However, when stakeholders learn about this impact, they may use it responsibly. One plausible way of dealing with the problem is managing animal waste (Grace Communications Foundation 8).
Conclusion
In the US, hormone use is legal and quite prevalent. It is economically beneficial to farmers to adopt this practice. However, the advantages they enjoy come at a price. First, consumers of meats are at a high risk of developing cancer. Many of them may also report early puberty and exaggerated secondary sexual characteristics. Although studies exist to validate the use of these hormones, most of them are short-term and have not looked at the issue directly. Furthermore, even minuscule amounts of the hormone in meats can lead to epigenetic changes. The practice also endangers animals by causing udder infections, hoof infections, and several other health complications. Antibiotic resistance from hormone use in cattle may also be transferred to consumers. Hormone residues are quite dangerous to the environment as the pollutants enter water bodies through surface runoff. This leads to deformities and alterations in marine ecosystems. It is for these reasons that the use of meat hormones should be eradicated.
References
American Public Health Association. Policy statement database: Opposition to the use of hormone growth promoters in beef and dairy cattle production. 2009. Web.
Cornell University. Breast cancer and environmental risk factors in New York State. 2000. Web.
Grace Communications Foundation. Hormones. 2013. Web.
Raloff, Janet. “Hormones: Here’s the beef environmental concerns remerge over steroids given to livestock.” Science News Week 161.1(2002): 10. Web.