|
| |
CHALLENGES ON THE SAFETY OF U. S. MEAT: OPRAH
RIGHT FOR OTHER REASONS
by Samuel S. Epstein, MD, professor of Environmental Medicine, University
of Illinois School of Public Health, Chicago Illinois; chairman of the Cancer
Prevention Coalition, and member of NOHA’s Professional Advisory Board
The World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled in favor of the 1989 European ban on
the use of sex hormones for growth promotion of cattle in feedlots prior to
slaughter. While subject to further assessment before it can be made permanent,
this ruling is a major victory for European consumers. It is also a major defeat
for the United States and Canada, which challenged the European ban claiming
that it was "protectionist," costing over $100 million a year in lost
exports, and that it reflected "consumerism versus science." The WTO
ruling also raises serious concerns on the safety of U. S. meat, recently
questioned on different grounds by Oprah Winfrey, based on the following
considerations:
| |
- Confidential industry reports
to the U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), obtained under
the Freedom of Information Act, reveal high residues of natural
and synthetic sex hormones in meat products even under ideal test
conditions. This is contrary to repeated and explicit assurances
by the FDA and the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
- Following legal implantation in
the ear of steers of Synovex-5, a combination of estradiol and
progesterone, estradiol levels in meat products ranged up to 20-fold
in excess of the normal. . Based on conservative estimates, the
amount of estradiol in two hamburgers eaten by an 8-year-old boy
could increase his hormone levels by 10%.
- Much higher hormone residues are
found in meat products following illegal implantation in cattle
muscle, which is commonplace in U. S. feedlots. The WTO ruled
that such abuse alone would justify the European ban.
- Contrary to repeated and explicit
assurances by the FDA and USDA, none of the approximately 130
million U. S. livestock slaughtered annually are tested for residues
of cancer-causing and gene-damaging estradiol or any related sex
hormones. This misrepresentation has been confirmed by European
Commission inspectors, in the November 1997 survey of U. S. control
programs, who reported that there was no monitoring for residues
of sex hormones nor for illegal animal drugs, including antibiotics,
and that U. S. residue monitoring was totally inadequate to meet
European standards.
- Repeated assurances on the safety
of hormonal meat by the World Health Organization bodies, the
Food and Agriculture Organization and the Codex Alimentarium Commission
(FAO/CODEX), reflect minimal expertise in public health, high
representation of senior FDA and USDA officials and industry consultants,
reliance on unpublished industry and outdated scientific information,
and conflicts of interest. Paradoxically, the same Codex Commission,
which approved hormonal meat, explicitly warned over a decade
ago that baby meat foods "shall be free from residues of
hormones."
- Lifelong exposure to high residues
of natural and synthetic sex hormones in meat products poses serious
risks of breast and other reproductive cancers, whose incidence
in the U. S. has sharply escalated since 1950, namely, 55% for
breast cancer, 120% for testicular cancer, and 230% for prostate
cancer. Those hormone residues have also been incriminated in
increasing trends of precocious sexual development.
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
Summary
The European ban on hormonal meat should serve as a long-overdue wake-up call
for U. S. consumers to demand an immediate ban on hormone use, or, minimally,
the explicit labeling of hormonal meat products. It should also lead to a
congressional investigation of the FDA and USDA for gross regulatory abdication
besides suppression of information vital to consumer health. The dangers of U.
S. hormonal meat can no longer be ignored.
Article from NOHA NEWS, Vol. XXIII, No. 3, Summer 1998,
pages 3-4.
|