Seed to Plate

Home » Food Issues » Hormone Growth Promoters Fed to Beef Cattle Linked to Adverse Impacts on Male Sexual Development

Hormone Growth Promoters Fed to Beef Cattle Linked to Adverse Impacts on Male Sexual Development

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 – DES (diethylstilbestrol) – 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 (Marcus, 1994, cited in Swan et al., 2007).

Today, there are six anabolic steroids given, in various combinations, to nearly all animals entering conventional beef feedlots in the U.S. and Canada:

    * Three natural steroids (estradiol, testosterone, and progesterone), and
    * Three synthetic hormones (the estrogen compound zeranol, the androgen trenbolone acetate, and progestin melengestrol acetate).

Anabolic steroids are typically used in combinations. Measurable levels of all the above growth-promoting hormones are found at slaughter in the muscle, fat, liver, kidneys and other organ meats. The Food and Drug Administration has set “acceptable daily intakes” (ADIs) for these animal drugs.

Questions and controversy over the impacts of these added hormones on human development and health have lingered for four decades. In 1988 the European Union banned the use of all hormone growth promoters. The ADIs on the books for years are based on traditional toxicity testing methods and do not reflect the capacity of these drugs, which are potent endocrine disruptors, to alter fetal and childhood development. According to Swan et al. (2007) –
“…the possible effects on human populations exposed to residues of anabolic sex hormones through meat consumption have never, to our knowledge, been studied. Theoretically, the fetus and the prepubertal child are particularly sensitive to exposure to sex steroids…”
This gap in research is remarkable, given that every beef-eating American for over 50 years has been exposed to these hormones on a regular basis. To begin to explore possible impacts, Swan et al. (2007) carried out a study assessing the consequences of beef consumption by pregnant women on their adult male offspring. The families included in the study were recruited from the multicenter “Study for Future Families” (SFF).

The study team assessed sperm quantity and quality among 773 men. Data on beef consumption during pregnancy was available from the mothers of 387 men. These mothers consumed, on average, 4.3 beef meals per week, and were divided into a high beef consumption group (more than seven meals per week) and a low-consumption group (less than 7 per week).

The scientists compared sperm concentrations and quality among the men born to women in the high and low beef consumption groups. They found that:

    * Sperm concentration (volume) was 24.3 percent higher in the sons of mothers in the “low” beef consumption group.
    * Almost 18 percent of the sons born to women in the high beef consumption group had sperm concentrations below the World Health Organization threshold for subfertility – about three-times more than in the sons of women in the low consumption group.

The authors concluded that –
“These findings suggest that maternal beef consumption is associated with lower sperm concentration and possible subfertility, associations that may be related to the presence of anabolic steroids and other xenobiotics in beef.”
This study lends urgency to the long-recognized need for the FDA to reconsider the acceptable daily intakes of hormones used to promote growth in beef feedlots. This reassessment will, in all likelihood, be resisted by the animal drug and beef industries, and once begun, will take many years to be carried out. In the interim, families wanting to avoid the risk of developmental problems in their male children can do so by choosing organic beef.

Source: “Semen quality of fertile US males in relation to their mothers’ beef consumption during pregnancy”

Authors: S.H. Swan, F. Liu, J.W. Overstreet, C. Brazil, and N.E. Skakkebaek

Journal: Human Reproduction, Advance Access published online March 28, 2007. Access the Full Text here.

Write a comment

  • Required fields are marked with *.

If you have trouble reading the code, click on the code itself to generate a new random code.
Security Code:
 
Leigh
Posts: 5
Comment
taste
Reply #5 on : Mon December 01, 2008, 23:43:48
I am much less concerned about taste than I am about health. Having said that, I can't say that I've ever eaten chicken, pork, or beef that has been raised organically/free range that DOESN'T taste better than those animals raised in the conventional way. The same goes for vegetables.

My children's health is of the utmost importance to me. The FDA should be putting more emphasis on our health instead of bowing to Monstanto and the like.
stephen
Posts: 5
Comment
Homework
Reply #4 on : Mon December 01, 2008, 06:45:02
Since you are all so educated on the world cattle market, how many of you know that the United States is also one of the only countries who currently employ the practice of castration in not only the beef market, but also in swine, lamb, and even poultry. This practice is not used in Europe, as they are so "worried" about their citizens, they don't even think about the quality of their products. Additionally, Japan currently pays much higher premiums for beef fed to reach a higher marbling grade (intramuscular fat) than Americans will ever be willing to shell out for food. More importantly, I have worked in both the beef and pork industries, in areas from birth and feeding to harvest, and I can say that the FDA and USDA are both very strict on what they permit to enter the US food supply. Finally, if you took the time to research the topic, tests have and a currently being conducted on a daily basis, and have found that the end quantity of hormones in fed beef are astoundingly within literal parts per million to billion of those cattle fed out in an organic environment(grass), yet there is one large difference, the ration fed cattle are proven to taste better across the board. Do your homework before you yap on topics you have no intelligence about.
Jono
Posts: 5
Comment
banned but not absent
Reply #3 on : Mon November 03, 2008, 22:25:21
Don't assume that because the drugs are banned they are not being used. Just look at drugs use in sport.
Debbie
Posts: 5
Comment
Re: Hormone Growth Promoters Fed to Beef Cattle Linked to Adverse Impacts on Male Sexual Development
Reply #2 on : Wed July 02, 2008, 15:44:20
The reason there is no public outcry is because producers like Monsanto have threatened to sue reporters and news companies like FOX (in Florida) if they publish any articles or air stories about the negative impacts of these bovine growth hormones (especially rBGH). They bribed the FDA (plus many key people at Monsanto used to work for the FDA and vice-versa) so they are in cahoots. Monsanto is keeping this out of the news, greedy government officials are accepting bribes to allow these products on the market. Consumers must keep themselves educated and not expect truth to come from the media or the government. The less consumers buy these products and the more they write to their governments, etc. the more likely these products will be removed from the market. I sure wish I lived in Europe, the European government seems to actually care about the health of their citizens.
Miriam Zimmerman
Posts: 5
Comment
Re: Hormone Growth Promoters Fed to Beef Cattle Linked to Adverse Impacts on Male Sexual Development
Reply #1 on : Mon April 28, 2008, 21:54:14
Regarding hormone growth promoters in beef: obviously, the results of the study suggests Americans should either become vegetarians or move to Europe where such growth hormones are banned.

Seriously, why is there not a hue and cry among the populace for independent (of animal drug industries) research to establish safe levels of these growth promoters?