Hormonally treated meat has long been suspected of contributing to negative human health effects. In 1988, The Joint Food and Agricultural Organization/World Health Organization and the US Food and Drug Administration considered the residues found in meat from treated animals safe for consumers. However, the conclusion regarding the safety of the hormones has been reconsidered, where "many industry funded studies show no risk, independent studies suggest" that hormonal presence in meat and dairy products are disturbing to many (Minowa). Earlier studies that considered hormones safe were based on inadequate scientific data and uncertain assumptions. Chemical and hormone overload can affect both sexes, but children, pregnant women, and developing embryos are the most susceptible to additive hormones which pose potential health risks. Not only that, but hormonal presence in food is detrimental to animal health and the environment. Like the European Union, the United States should take action to ban the use of hormones in food and realize the negative consequences.
Since the 1950's , meat and dairy production has been on the rise and the easiest answer to modern factory farmers is to inject or feed hormones into their animals to make them fatter, faster. Farmers today produce cattle in a record time of as little as fourteen months. In 1950, a cow produced 5,300 pounds of milk in a year and in 2011 a cow produced 20,000 pounds (Table Hormones). The concern of scientists and consumers both is that traces of the hormones and chemicals will remain in the meat and pose a hazard to the humans who consume it. When hormones are injected into cattle, naturally occurring hormone levels increase seven to twenty times (Table Hormones). Epid...
... middle of paper ...
...orld. Healthy Child Healthy World, 26 Feb. 2013. Web. 22 Mar. 2014
Barrett, Amanda. "Added Hormones in Meat and Dairy." Health Facts. Beliefnet, n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2014.
"Greening Princeton." Princeton University. Princeton University, n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
Hoffman, Matthew. "Understanding Food Safety: Pesticides, Hormones, and Antibiotics in Food." WebMD. WebMD, n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2014.
Laliberte, Richard. "Growth Hormones in Beef and Milk." Weight Watchers. Weight Watchers, n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
"Organic Foods: Health and Environmental Advantages and Disadvantages." Organic Foods: Health and Environmental Advantages and Disadvantages. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.
"Policy Statement Database." APHA. APHA, n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.
"Table Hormones." GRACE Communications Foundation. GRACE Communications Foundation, n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2014.
Every beef cattle produced is injected with steroids. With the injection of steroids it makes the cow grow at an alarming rate, and helps turn food into muscle at a quicker rate. But this is the obvious information. What are they putting into both dairy cattle and beef cattle that could cause harm to us? There is a harmful hormone called IGF. Now, this hormone is not directly put into the cattle. But, all cattle are given rBGH (to put simply it helps them produce more milk/meat). But, rBGH is directly linked to IGF, a hormone that mimics the effects of the growth of human hormones in dangerous ways. It is said that cattle containing rBGH produce 10 times to IGF than cattle without rBGH. “In a 2004 study, patients with above-average IGF levels had nearly a 50% higher risk of prostate cancer and a 65% higher risk of hormone-dependent premenopausal breast cancer than people with below-average levels.” says Carina Storrs of Health.com. Also, a lot of cattle are dosed with high amounts of antibiotics, like penicillin. It is said that a lot of the antibiotics that humans use become ineffective from being exposed to antibiotic resistant bacteria from eating beef! These are just a few of MANY drugs put into cattle. Do you see how consuming high amounts of beef could be harmful to
Most of us do not think twice about the foods we pick up from the supermarket. Many Americans have a preconceived belief that the food being sold to us is safe, and withholds the highest standard of quality. Certainly, compared to many places in the world, this is true. But is the United States sincerely trying to carry out these standards, or have we begun to see a reverse in the health and safety of our food- and more explicitly in our meat? Jonathan Foer, author of “Eating Animals” argues for reform within the food industry- not only for the humane treatment of animals but moreover for our own health. Although Foer exposes the ills within the food industries in order to persuade readers to change their diets for the better, his “vegetarianism or die” assessment may be too extreme for most Americans. The true ills do not start with the meat, but with industrialized production of it through methods practiced by factory farming.
The beef hormone dispute represents a new type of ideologically-based trade dispute that is becoming more and more common . Hormone treated beef was first banned in 1989 by the European Community, and in 1995, the beef hormone case was one of the first cases brought to the newly formed World Trade Organisation (WTO). The US claimed that the ban on hormone treated beef was inconsistent with the new Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the SPS agreement), negotiated as part of the Uruguay Trade Round. This agreement established rules governing food safety regulations, stating that such regulations must be supported by scientific risk assessment . A WTO dispute panel ruled in favour of the United States, saying that the EU’s use of the precautionary principle (which justified the ban on the ground of scientific uncertainty about the health effects of hormones ) could not override the terms of the SPS agreement. The EU did not alter its regulations, prompting the United States to instigate tariffs against $116.8 million of European goods, mostly luxury items from France, Germany and Italy, countries that the US saw as the strongest supporters of the ban . These tariffs remained in place for years as attempts to resolve the dispute through bilateral negotiation repeatedly...
Conversely, there have been multiple indicators correlating these products to cancer, allergies, infertility, organ damage, genetic defects, and premature death. Scientists do not come to an agreement regarding these investigations, because most findings have been derived from short medical studies of 12 months or less. It is known that “short-term studies are useful for ruling out acute toxicity, but do not provide valid evidence regarding the long-term safety of GMOs”. (Fagan, Antoniou, Claire
Factory farming is a necessary component of our modern food production and supply system. In 2005, the U.S. produced 45.7 billion pounds of red meat. It efficiently produces and distributes huge quantities of food to feed the growing population of America. But the overfeeding of antibiotics in the U.S. meat industry has gotten to the extreme and it calls for a drastic change in order to prevent a potential public health crises.
Like antibiotics, hormones can be produced and placed in animal feed, for example Bovine Somatotropin, which is given to cows to increases milk production.2 The use of hormones and antibiotics in animal feed has been a controversial topic for many years. There are obvious advantages and disadvantages with the use of such products. Farmers see hormones and antibiotics as a major advantage as the increase their profits and gain the maximum out of their livestock.
Genetic modification is very harmful for human beings; it has a huge negative effect on animals’ and humans’ health. The manipulation of the genes of crops and animals may cause health damage. “Animal toxicity studies have shown that genetically modified foods may toxically affect several organs and systems” (Arvanitoyannis, 162, 2011). These studies concluded that genetically modified foods are dangerous and they may become one of the most harmful issues in the world. According to Arvanitoyannis research genetically modified foods cause some common toxic effects such as: hepatic, pancreatic, renal or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical and immuno...
...igh meat diets and cancer risk." The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 58(2):243-8, May 1999.
Yiridoe, E., Bonti-Ankomah, S., & Martin, R. (2005). Comparison of consumer perceptions and preference toward organic versus conventionally produced foods: A review and update of the literature. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 20(4), 193-205. Retrieved from http://journals.cambridge.org.er.lib.k-state.edu/action/displayFulltext?type=6&fid=692720&jid=RAF&volumeId=20&issueId=04&aid=692716&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyETOCSession=&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S1742170505000220
Consuming foods that have been genetically altered have serious health risks based on research done on rats by The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM), an international organization of physicians. Risks include infertility, immune system problems, accelerated aging, disruption of insulin and cholesterol regulation, gastrointestinal problems and organ damage. Many AAEM physicians have prescribed non-GMO diets for all patients to improve health conditions. Jeffrey M. Smith, an advocate for non-GMO, says scientific research shows the link of GM food to thousands of sick, sterile, and dead livestock; thousands of toxic and allergic reactions in humans; and damage t...
An abundance of Americans have no idea that most of the food that they consume are either processed or altered in one way or another. “Almost all beef cattle entering feedlots in the United States are given hormone implants to promote faster growth. The first product used for this purpose is DES (diethylstilbestrol) it was approved for use in beef cattle in 1954. An estimated two-thirds of the nation's beef cattle were treated with DES in 1956. (Swan, Liu, Overstreet, Brazil, and Skakkebaek)” Many people enjoy the various meats that comes from a cow, but that would probably change if the consumers knew that cattle is one of the most processed meat source in the market today because of the synthetic hormones that the cows are given. “ The three synthetic hormones are the estrogen compound zeranol, the androgen trenbolone acetate, and progestin melengestrol acetate. (Swan, Liu, Overstreet, B...
http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/hormones/>. U.S. Food System Fact Sheet. Center for Sustainable Systems. The University of Michigan, 2010. Web.
Organic food is generally not much healthier than regular fruits and such nutrition wise with a few exceptions. “Higher vitamin C concentrations were found in organic leafy vegetables, such as spinach, lettuce, and chard versus the same conventionally produced vegetables in 21 of 36 (58%) studies”( Foreman). Also mentioned is that organic and nonorganic milk is not much different as “In general, milk has the same protein, vitamin, trace mineral content, and lipids from both organically and conventionally reared cows.”( Foreman).Despite the exception, it has been stated that the exception does not have strong enough evidence that can let a statement such as “eating organic food is more beneficial than eating conventionally grown food” stand on its own and be taken seriously. Another unfortunate circumstance on organic food is the price. On average, anything organic is priced higher than non-organic food, and according to Digestive Specialists Inc., it “…costs anywhere from 20 to 100 percent more than regular produce” (Digestive Specialists). The higher price leaves any financially struggling person or family less likely to invest in organic food when there is always a cheaper option available, even if the cheaper product isn’t beneficial to their health. The reason for this, mentioned by Health Research Funding,“…Organic farmers do not use artificial fertilizers, they tend to produce smaller quantities. Their method of farming is also more labor-intensive with weed pulling and crop rotation. And then there is the issue of supply and demand – as the demand for organic produce increases, so does the price” (Health Research Funding). The quality of organic fruits, while being mostly free of pesticides and chemicals, can also have a lot less time to deteriorate compared to non-organic foods. To summarize the issue, Mayo Clinic states that, “Because organic fruits and vegetables aren 't
Thesis: Organic food is full of nutrients and when compared to conventional food is a much better choice
Organic food is food that is grown without any pesticide or fertilizers. In recent years, sales for organic foods are increasing every year. A lot of people go to supermarkets in order to buy some organic foods, because they think that organic foods are healthier than conventional foods. People purchase organic foods for different reasons such as personal health, the quality of organic foods, and taste, but the most important reason is personal health. The topic that whether organic foods have more benefits or not is very controversial for a long time. Maybe some people believe that organic foods are beneficial to human health, but some other people disagree with the viewpoint, so buying organic foods depend on people’s choices. People believe organic foods are healthier because they generally think organic foods have less pesticide and fertilizer residue, more nutritional values, and are beneficial to environment.