Skip to main content

Hormones in the Animal Agriculture Industry.

Hey everyone! I just would like to preface this by saying that over the next few days I will have the amazing opportunity to meet and interact with Temple Grandin. Dr. Grandin is an amazing influential character in the animal industry. She specializes in animal welfare. If you do not know who she is, please take a second and look her up before reading this blog.

Now, onto the important matter here. Hormones are a hot topic in the food animal circles, whether you’re a consumer, producer, retailer, etc. I want to state that I do not want to tell you how to think. I really want to give people the facts and maybe a small part of my opinion. Before we can truly believe something, we must first know the hard facts. Since this post is such a big deal, I will start by stating my opinion so that you know where I stand and can determine what parts of this blog are facts.  I believe that hormones in animal agriculture are safe to humans, increase productivity, and are efficient to the industry. However from an animal welfare standpoint I do not agree with use of added hormones.

Let me start with the basics. The first thing you need to know is the difference between beta-agonists and hormones. A beta-agonist is basically a non-hormonal compound which releases epinephrine (adrenaline) and converts extra energy to muscle, in turn increasing growth efficiency. These animals, being pumped with adrenaline are increasingly skittish, jumpy, and stressed. It would probably be similar to someone who is on methamphetamines (this is my comparison, not a fact). In fact, Dr. Grandin found so many problems in packing plants when a beta-agonist called Zilmax© was introduced that all major packing plants quit using it. Read that story here. Beta-agonists are used in large scale cattle and pork growing stages. Smaller feedlots tend to avoid beta-agonists. Hormones are natural to all animals, so that when added to the diet, implanted, or injected into the animal, it does not frighten them like high dosages of epinephrine do. However increased dosages of hormones to enhance production efficiency. Hormones are not used in pork or poultry products.

In dairy cattle, the most common hormone that we hear about is bovine-somatotropin (bST). It has been proven that this hormone, which increases milk production, is completely safe for human consumption. The reasoning behind this is that bST is a protein based hormone and is biologically inactive in the human body1. First, any residue from this hormone is mostly eliminated by pasteurization of the dairy product. Second, any bit of hormone left in the product, once consumed, is completely digested by the human gastro-intestinal tract and is turned into amino acids. This makes the hormone completely safe to consume and causes no increased growth or faster puberty in humans. However, in 1999 the European Union banned use of bST due to animal welfare concerns. The U.S. is the only major exporter to use bST in dairy cattle. Read about the court case on bST here.

As much as I hate to admit it, I think that the animal agriculture industry has made a mistake allowing hormones to be our easy way out. I believe that the use of hormones and beta-agonists are economically motivated. I also believe that if the industry chose to select for better genetics, larger animals, leaner animals, then we wouldn’t need the use of hormones. The problem with this is that it is expensive, takes a long time, and is not as efficient. Use of these additives is cheap, (although the people making them sure do make a lot of money) it helps produce more meat with less animals and less feed, and the results are somewhat immediate. All of these hormones and beta-agonists have also been approved by the FDA when given in the correct dosages. Producers will be hard-set in their current ways and unlikely to change especially when what they’re doing is government approved.

I would like to hit on one last thing before I go. As consumers we need to educate ourselves and our fellow consumers. I want to point out that sometimes we make things harder on ourselves. While worrying about what meat is the best to pick, keep in mind that NO poultry producer uses antibiotics after the second day of life. It is illegal. Hormones are NOT added in poultry or pork. This is not to say that any producer or retailer is lying to you. Just be aware that there truly is no difference in “antibiotic free”

chicken and conventional chicken. Please share with your friends and help them become savvy shoppers and consumers. Let me know what you think by commenting below!



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Impact of Food Waste and How You Can Reduce It!

Food waste is a major concern all around the world. It comes to play in political topics such as agricultural sustainability, economic matters, environmental concerns and feeding the world. The agriculture industry has its fair share of food waste, but so does every individual I know (at least here in America). I know I am definitely guilty. The problem has become so large that Congresswoman Chellie Pingree wants to propose legislation to help address the problem on our home turf. Pingree says that “40% of food in the U.S. is wasted.” 1 That is a ridiculous amount for such an advanced country to be losing. Pingree also said that there are four levels to our food waste problem: 1)                        restaurant and retail 2)                      institutions (school,assist...

The Truth About Uncured Meats

When you’re at the grocery store, do you ever feel like all you see is greenwashed logos and brands? It’s hard to find anything that’s not “all natural” or non-GMO. We’ve talked about labels before, and how they can be misleading. For example, meat is always gluten free, but now tons of meat products have a gluten-free label on them. Some consumers likely don’t realize that all meat has always been gluten free, and they pay extra for that little banner. One of the most misleading labels-in my opinion at least-is the “uncured” label on processed meats. What do you think of when you see that label on your lunch meat or bacon? I assume  most people, when they see this label, think Oh, there’s not as many chemicals! It’s gotta be better. More natural. Maybe even healthier! The good news is, I was really impressed with how accurate the first few Google results were when I looked up the differences between uncured and cured bacon. I saw only a few statements that uncured bacon ...

Does Meat Cause Cancer?

So, in light of the recent chaotic news about meat being a potential carcinogen I have been asked to do a post about it. First off, let’s talk about what the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) really said. The IARC ranks the potential of cancer causing agents in 5 categories 1 : ·          Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans ·          Group 2A: Probably carcinogenic to humans ·          Group 2B: Possibly carcinogenic to humans ·          Group 3: Unclassifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans ·          Group 4: Probably not carcinogenic to humans Now, according to the press release, red meat is considered as Group 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans. Now, please don’t stop reading here and thinking your suspicions were confirmed.  According to the arti...