Jessica Razumich

As early as the 1930s, it was discovered that hormones injected into an animal would result in faster growth and production. Since then the use of hormones in meat and dairy production has taken off and the FDA has approved six hormones that are used in meat production in the U.S. today. Those six hormones are: estradiol, progesterone, testosterone, zeranol, trenbolone acetate, and melengestrol acetate. Three of the six are natural sex hormones, the other three are synthetic growth promoters. The growth hormone that is currently being used in dairy production is called bovine growth hormone (rBGH). rBGH speeds up the cows pituitary glands, which in turn allows the cow to produce more milk. Basically, according to Cornell University, these hormones can make young animals gain weight faster, thus reducing the waiting time and the amount of feed eaten by animals before slaughter. According to USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service,: in 2005, 32.5 million cattle were slaughtered to provide beef for U.S. consumers and scientists believe about two-thirds of American cattle raised for slaughter today are injected with hormones.

Even though a variety of hormones are produced by our bodies and are essential for normal development, synthetic steroid hormones like those used in the food production industry have been found to effect human health. For example, Diethylstilbestrol (DES), one of the first synthetic growth hormone, was introduced in the early 1950’s and put into production in the U.S. to fatten chickens. This product was used commercially until the late 1970’s when DES was found to cause cancer (Consumer). It took society about twenty years to realize that something they intentionally put into their food was causing harm to their health. Yet we, as a society, are continuing today to use hormones that we are unsure of in our food for production. The Food and Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) claims that they monitor hormone treated meat in food production. However, research shows that zeranol is the only hormone out of the six approved by the FDA that can be monitored for residue (Consumer). The three other sex hormones are made naturally by the animal and are unable to be monitored. In turn, how are we as consumers supposed to trust the farmers who claim that they used the proper amount of hormones solely based on “their word”? We cannot! Scientists also questioned whether hormone residues in the meat of "growth enhanced" animals and can disrupt human hormone balance, causing developmental problems, interfering with the reproductive system, and even leading to the development of breast, prostate or colon cancer (Artificial).

Evidence shows that rBGH, the hormone used within the dairy production to increase the amount of milk being produced by the cows, has been found to have higher levels of the “naturally produced protein called insulin-dependent growth factor-1 (IGF-1) (Consumer). IGF-1 has been considered by scientists to cause breast cancer in women. In a study by Harvard-based Nurses Health Study, higher levels of IGF-1 in blood have been found in women with breast cancer compared to women without breast cancer. Dr. Jenny Pompilio of the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility explains the health risks of rBGH (rBST) on both cows and humans. Also with the rBGH treated milk, there is a concern that because of the increased milking that they cow’s can become more prone to mastitis resulting in more antibiotics being used to treat the infection. This in turn can lead to residues of the antibiotic being left in the milk and frequent exposure to antibiotic residue is a health concern. Besides harming ourselves with these hormones, the side effects of the hormones on the animals are just as shocking.

FDA approved rBGH in 1993, even though scientists, farmers, and consumers alike expressed concern over the hormone because they felt that it had not been properly tested. As a result, the dairy cattle that have been treated with rBGH to produce more milk, are showing negative side effects of the hormones. According The Issues - Sustainable Table, one lifelong New York dairy farmer reported losing a quarter of his herd to sever mastitis after beginning rBGH injections. (Mastitis is the inflammation of the mammary gland, and it can result in infection which can significantly reduce milk production.) He also reported a drastic drop in production after taking his cows off rBGH; they produced less milk then they had before going on the drug. A year later he had to replace 135 of his original 200 cows. Other farmers using rBGH are also reporting similar problems, in addition to hoofs diseases, open sores, and cows that died from internal bleeding (Artificial). Another thing to take into consideration is that when a cow if forced to produce an unnaturally high quantity of milk, they will often become malnourished because they lose more nutrients through their milk than they ingest in their feed. A 1991 report by Rural Vermont revealed serious health problems with the rBGH-injected cows that were part of a Monsanto-financed study at the University of Vermont. However, Monsanto held back health and safety problems of drinking treated milk, and threatened legal action against FOX News journalists for wanting to expose the negative effects that were being played down. It is a vicious cycle and cannot simply be stopped. As mentioned when the cows were taken off the hormone they produced less milk, yet when they were on the hormone they were susceptible to diseases. It is a lose-lose situation for these farmers, who if they decide to stop using the hormone, they have to replace their cattle, yet if they keep the cattle on the hormone they risk the death of the animal.

Despite international scientific and social concern, the United States and Canada continue to allow growth-promoting hormones in cattle. However, The European Union does not allow the use of hormones in cattle production. They have banned the use of hormones, and the importation of hormone treated meat since 1988 (Artifical). Even though Canada allows growth-promoting hormones in cattle, they have banned the use of rBGH in their dairy production. Does this not strike society as strange; that countries cannot seem to find a solid answer to this hormone epidemic? The studies so far do not provide sufficient answers to these questions. EU says new scientific evidence backs up beef hormone fears, new checks by a European Union scientific panel have confirmed that eating beef from cattle raised on growth hormones is a potential health risk (EU). However, U.S. studies done so far are said to not provide evidence to state that hormone residues in meat or dairy products cause any human health effects. While currently available evidence does not indicate a link between eating meat, milk or dairy products from hormone-treated animals result in any health effects, why would we even jeopardize that chance that it might. Like the DES hormone, is it going to take society another twenty years to realize that we are giving ourselves cancer for the sake of faster food production? Should we continue to risks the heath and lives of not only ourselves, but the animals as well? In the face of all that’s unknown about hormones in our food, a cautions approach is reasonable.