The Real Dope on Beef Hormones in Canada

Is Canadian meat safe to eat, or just another hazard to our health?

by Brad Duplisea, Canadian Health Coalition

REPORT

A recent audit of Canada's food-inspection system by the European Commission (EC) raises serious questions about the safety of Canadian meat.

The audit reveals very serious deficiencies in the regulatory framework and documents wide-spread use of cancer-causing hormones, antibiotics and other endocrine disrupting substances in our meat supply. Canadian and European scientists believe that hormone-laced Canadian meat poses a threat to the public, particularly pregnant women and prepubertal children.

Hormone residues in meat and meat products can disrupt the natural "endocrine equilibrium" (hormone balance). Disruption of this equilibrium can result in harmful consequences for health. The EC audit concluded that Canadian meat consumers are exposed to unnecessary risk from the intake of hormone residues.

Scientists believe that susceptible groups are put at unnecessary risk by these hormones. Not enough data is available to allow a quantitative estimate of risk for any of the hormones in question. Therefore, because we can't establish safety thresholds, there is no means to ascertain the "acceptable daily intake."

In the case of the common growth hormone estradiol, a growing body of evidence suggests it is a "complete carcinogen," exerting both tumour-initiating and tumour-promoting effects.

Children most vulnerable
Each stage of life, from embryo onwards, is characterized by a well defined natural hormonal balance. Hormonal activity varies greatly throughout different stages in the human life cycle. Scientific observation now suggests that prepubertal children constitute a high risk population for beef-hormones since the "endocrine equilibrium" at that age was grossly miscalculated.

New, more sensitive and sophisticated bio-assays (tests) developed for estradiol have concluded that the actual hormone production rates of children may have been overestimated by up to 100-fold. This represents a much greater risk than originally thought.

Consumption of hormone-treated beef may cause girls to reach puberty earlier, thus making them more susceptible to breast and other cancers. According to Carlos Sonnenschein, from Tufts University School of Medicine (Boston, MA), "Early onset of puberty with its raging hormones translates into higher risk of breast cancer" and it is "very likely" that hormone residues in North American beef is a contributing factor in the early onset of puberty among girls observed in recent decades.

According to Annie Sasco, from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, it makes sense that hormone-treated beef could trigger an earlier onset of puberty. "Even if the risk is small it would be prudent to stop the use of hormones in the cattle industry because there is no offsetting benefit for consumers," Sasco stated.

WTO beef dispute

When Europe finally banned imports of Canadian beef, the federal government challenged the decision at the World Trade Organization. The WTO beef-hormone ruling, which allows the Canadian government to apply retaliatory trade sanctions against the European Commission, did not consider new scientific understanding of growth hormones when it made its decision. The WTO panel, made up of trade experts with no scientific credentials, based its decision on inadequate, non-peer-reviewed data dating in some cases back to the 1960s. Some experts view those studies as questionable, lacking transparency and scientific credibility. Most of the adverse effects of hormones only became apparent in the 1990s.

The Precautionary Principle means that, in the face of scientific uncertainty, one should proceed with caution. In the case of beef-hormones the Precautionary Principle dictates that these hormone drugs should not be used until further research has ascertained their safety to humans. This is precisely why Europe banned the use of these potentially dangerous hormones. Canada should do the same.

It was profoundly unscientific and imprudent for the Canadian government to authorize the use of these hormones based on a non-scientific "assumption of safety." Simply put, the Canadian government threw the Precautionary Principle out the window. Despite the scathing European audit, the Canadian government maintains it can provide European consumers with hormone-free beef. It's an outrage that the same precautionary measures won't be afforded to Canadians.

Manage the damage

The European audit provides further evidence that the federal government has made a major regulatory shift in the role of government. By shifting from the Precautionary Principle to that of a "risk management" approach (where illness and death are considered "acceptable risks"), food safety regulators now "manage the damage" instead of preventing harm from happening in the first place. This shift repudiates lessons learned from the European mad cow disaster and from Justice Horace Krever's inquiry into Canada's tainted blood disaster. To paraphrase Justice Krever, government must regulate in the public interest, not in the interest of the regulated.

The Canadian government ignored warnings from its own experts in 1997 about the dangers of hormone residues in beef. Instead, it gagged two of its most knowledgeable veterinary scientists and told the Canadian public the European Commission's decision to stop importing Canadian beef was just a "trade dispute."

Recently in the Toronto Star, Federal Agriculture Minister Lyle Vanclief responded to the EC audit by defending the use of animal hormones. "There has never been any scientific proof of any danger," stated Vanclief. This is a dangerously misleading statement. Health Canada's own scientific experts had recommended against approving these hormones on the grounds that they posed a threat to human health.

In a speech to the European Union, Prime Minister Chretien said, "We urge that science-based approaches be taken to determine the degree of risk to the environment or human health posed by certain products."

In April 1998, however, when the commission formally requested the risk assessment data on which Health Canada based its pro-hormone decision to authorize the use of beef hormones, Canada refused, claiming the data was submitted in confidence. So much for a "science-based" approach.

Beef hormones are used by industry to increase weight gain in cattle. The use of such powerful hormones for non-therapeutic, non-essential purposes is irresponsible and offers no benefits to the consumer or society, only risk.

Public health should come before beef industry profits. Let's do the right thing and ban the use of beef hormones.