DUBLIN, Ireland (May 20, 1999 7:02 a.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) - The United States remains committed to imposing retaliatory tariffs on European Union goods because of the EU's refusal to accept hormone-treated North American beef.

The announcement from both sides came after two hours of discussions here Thursday.

But U.S. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman and his European Union counterpart, Franz Fischler of Austria, stood side-by-side afterward to emphasize that even if America retaliates as threatened, it wouldn't amount to a trade war.

"Ninety-nine percent of the trade between the United States and Europe is unaffected by this dispute," Glickman said, Fischler nodding in agreement beside him.

"We had a frank and open discussion, but Dan Glickman and I didn't negotiate," Fischler said.

The United States is threatening to impose $202 million in tariffs on EU exports June 3 in retaliation for the EU's rejection of a World Trade Organization decision requiring the 15-nation union to begin accepting hormone-treated beef, which Canada also wishes to export to Europe.

The WTO has three times accepted U.S.-led studies finding hormone-treated beef safe, but Fischler insisted EU-instigated research indicated it was unsafe and that more thorough studies needed to be done.

Glickman and Fischler said they had agreed to step up phone discussions between their chief civil servants and scientific advisers, though no date had been established for further top-level discussions.

When asked whether he thought the United States would accept compensation payments from the EU while the beef ban remained, Fischler said: "It's not the right moment to make speculations about that."

Glickman said he had received no specific compensation proposal from Fischler.

Fischler emphasized his desire to avoid a lengthy public argument between Europe and the United States on this issue. Such bickering would likely lower consumers' confidence in beef products generally, he said, "and this can't be in anybody's interest."

On Wednesday night, the pair sparred politely on stage as the star attractions at the World Meat Congress, a meeting of 600 international meat industry officials.

Fischler rejected Glickman's proposal that U.S. beef sold in Europe could be clearly labeled hormone-treated or hormone-free. That, he said, would amount to giving consumers the choice "between dangerous or risky meat and safe meat."

And when asked if he thought Americans were putting their health at risk by eating domestic beef, he said: "Yes, absolutely."

Glickman's chief science adviser, Dr. Ifi Siddiqui, said the latest EU scientific claims looked like "nothing new," compared to previous material already rejected by WTO panels.

The EU does accept up to 11,500 tons of hormone-free U.S. beef annually. Fischler has previously suggested that raising this figure could form part of a compromise.

*******************************************************************

And when asked if he thought Americans were putting their health at risk by eating domestic beef, he said: "Yes, absolutely."

Hmmm scary thought I do love my steak once a week.

-- Rickjohn (rickjohn1@yahoo.com), May 20, 1999

Answers

I tend to believe that the hormones-bad-for-your-health idea is just an urban legend.

If Europeans were really concerned for their health, they would outlaw beef from Britain (because of Mad Cow disease), unpasteurized cheese, and cigarrettes--all items known and proven to be killers. Can you name anyone who has been harmed by hormone-treated beef?

-- Rick (doc_u_ment@hotmail.com), May 20, 1999.

This topic really rings my chimes! We all don't have enough time to keep up with y2k news/research...then there's food safety to worry about: Worry overload!!!! Hormone and antibiotic residues in beef are something I have looked into extensively in the past 5 years. Because of what I've found, we moved out of town, bought land and raise chemical free beef, i.e. no hormones, antibiotics, steriods of any type, etc. We also raise chickens for ourselves and my parents - again without antibiotics,etc. And this year I did find chicken feed that did not have "animal protein"(i.e. road-kill and rendered other animals) in it. We sell our Lean,Clean,Chemical- Free beef to individuals by the half or split half - but only in SW oklahoma. Shipping elsewhere would make the beef outrageously expensive. The more you know about the commercial beef production system, the more alarmed you would become. I myself will never eat another beef product outside our own meat. I subscribe to a Food Safety news service out of a university in canada - they are very informative.(Food Safety Net as I recall -on the internet) Now the powers that be are pushing for regulations to approve a system of irradiation of beef; hey, lets not clean up the system of pro- duction - lets just nuke the product....nevermind that it produces benzine, and so on. SIGH - I should not have started on this topic.

-- jeanne (jeanne@hurry.now), May 20, 1999.

http://www.fb.com/news/nr/nr97/nr0605.html Statement by Dean Kleckner, President of the American Farm Bureau Federation, Regarding Criticism by Several Environmental Groups of the Recent WTO Ruling on Beef Hormones June 5, 1997

"We are pleased that the multi-national panel empowered by the World Trade Organization to consider this issue has acknowledged that the European Union beef hormone ban is a trade barrier.

"U.S. farmers and ranchers, as well as those in several other countries, have been discriminated against by not being able to sell beef in Europe. Comprehensive scientific reviews have found no human health concerns resulting from beef produced with growth promotants.

"This decision, which has taken nearly 10 years to resolve, is the first step to expanding markets using the most modern scientific production tools. The use of hormones is truly one of the best environmental tools we have. Greater efficiency per animal has led to better utilization of feed and land resources.

"The panel has recognized that beef produced with growth hormones is safe for consumers. This ruling, combined with thorough carcass inspection procedures, means that consumers are protected and know they are receiving a safe product.

"The WTO decision is significant in that it upholds the principle of sound science which was negotiated in the Uruguay Round. The GATT agreement which resulted from those trade talks protects each country's right to set its own standards, as long as they are based on sound science."

http://www.calcattlemen.org/aboutcca.htm#Myths and Facts

Myth: The use of antibiotics and hormone growth implants in cattle production is causing hazardous residues in beef and contributing to health human problems.

Fact: No residues from feeding antibiotics are found in beef, and there is no valid scientific evidence that antibiotic use in cattle causes illness resulting from the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. CCAs Cow-Calf Quality Assurance Program and Feedlot Quality Certification Program further ensure the safe and proper use of antibiotics. Furthermore, scientific authorities agree that use of hormone growth implants result in the efficient production of beef that is safe. Hormones occur naturally in infinitesimal amounts in all meat, whether from implanted animals or not. Hormone implants increase the efficiency of beef production, reducing energy and feed requirements. This increased efficiency reduces the cost of retail beef by 20 to 30 cents per pound.

http://www.fb.com/news/nr/nr99/nr0513.html

"America's farmers and ranchers produce the safest food in the world. Our producers can compete in any market if given a fair shot. The European ban on American beef, for any reason, is an underhanded move designed to shut our beef out of their markets. We want fair access to European consumers. Let the consumers make the decision, not the protectionism of European politics. The ban on American beef is not fair. It's illegal, and the Europeans know it.

"Recent so-called scientific studies by European researchers into the safety of specific bovine growth hormones are yet another example of European foot-dragging on this issue; an issue that has already been settled by an international trade body. Independent examinations found these growth promotants to be safe-the scientists used sound, credible science, not home-cooked pre-determined pseudo-research. I find it ludicrous that the European Union continues to search for avenues around its international trade obligations."

-- marsh (siskfarm@snowcrest.net), May 20, 1999.

Rick - One of the criteria for whether substances in the diet could be an issue is whether they are absorbed into the body in an active form. For instance, insulin (a hormone) must be taken by injection because it is destroyed during digestion. Complicated molecules, especially proteins, tend to be destroyed. Estrogen (the female hormone) can be taken orally. I recall in graduate school (wildlife biology at a bird of prey management center), learning that the California Condor was believed to be having problems reproducing because the males had ingested too much DDE/DDT, a pesticide with similarities to estrogen.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), May 20, 1999.

Life is for living. Worrying about if that hamburger is going to kill you down the road is an exercise in intellectual pride, and little else. How many health-food consumers get killed in accidents or crimes on a given day?

Eat what you want, within reason. Be happy. Live knowing that you may not see another sunrise, but don't become a slave to the pursuit of fleeting pleasure. Moderation in all things.

Nobody gets out of here alive, y'know.

-- . (.@...), May 20, 1999.

Jeanne, it's good to know that you raise unpolluted meat. I too would never eat another bite of commercial meat. I'm a vegetarian because of the amount of chemicals in our food, and the inhumane way that corporations raise animals. My father-in-law worked in a meat processing plant to pay his way through college, and that was long before there were so many additives, and he never touched beef the rest of his life. He said you wouldn't believe what went on.

If it hadn't been for Upton Sinclair, writing The Jungle, about the atrocities at the Chicago meat packing plants, nothing would ever have been done to begin with.

My husband is a former cattleman and he said that everything Howard Lyman said in the Oprah Winfrey trial was true. For you who think this is a nonissue, or unimportant, let me suggest that you read Deadly Feasts by Richards Rhoads, Beef by Jeremy Rifkin, Diet For A New America by John Robbins and Stolen Future by Theo Colburn.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 20, 1999.

Er, hate to tell you folks, but Europe DID ban British beef because of Mad Cow disease. In addition, you still cannot buy certain types of meat in Britain because of the problem. Bone-in types, I think. I'm not sure of the details because I don't eat meat (and now have to worry about GE/GM foods), but the ban on British meat by the US is still, I believe, in effect. If you live around central North Carolina, Wellspring Grocery has certified hormone- and antibiotic-free meats.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), May 20, 1999.

Hold the phone . . . We know that disease, rotten stuff, and "chemicals" are bad. Can someone tell us now, at this time, on this very forum, specifically what is dangerous about beef produced with hormones. (Here I'm asking if you can make an argument limited to the topic of hormones, spelled h-o-r-m-o-n-e-s.) Thank you.

-- Rick (doc_u_ment@hotmail.com), May 21, 1999.

Rick, What I tried to explain above, is that if the hormone is absorbed into your body in an active form, then expect it to have an effect if it is a hormone that has active properties for people. A growth hormone might have more impact on children than on adults. However, don't expect a wealth of information on this because the research required to nail it is unlikely to be approved (too risky). Also, it is very hard to control enough variables in human experimentation to be certain of the results.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), May 21, 1999.

Hi Jeanne

Mind telling us what method of mechanical castration you use to produce beef, since you do not approve of the chemical methods?

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), May 21, 1999.

Hello Paul: I don't know what you are referring to by "chemical castration". The crossbreed bull calves that are born are right away banded around the scrotum - which drops off in a couple of weeks from lack of blood supply. The purebred bull calves that are born get to keep their "equipment" until weaning, which is about 6-8 months old. By that time we can tell which ones would be a herd sire prospect. The ones that look extra "good" are kept as bulls and sold as registered, purebred animals to others for breeding purposes. The ones that are not top of the line are castrated with a knife. We splash on Basic H to keep the flies away a few days. Those steers are then raised out for our beef. They are ready to process at 18 to 20 months old. Our registered animals (and all the bulls) are silver colored Murray Greys. That breed was originally from Australia.

-- jeanne (jeanne@hurry.now), May 21, 1999.

P.S. Paul: It could be that you thought the hormones used in the beef industry was for castration???? It is to promote faster growth. They claim that these hormone implants are tightly regulated and only "used as per good husbandry practices". HA - what a joke. Anyone can buy the implants - they are in all the vet supply catalogues that we order our vaccination supplies from.(ie. Valley Vet and Jeffers) You are supposed only to implant in the ear tissue. When first approved, it was only one implant. Now they "allow" two prior to weaning I believe...and they get more when going to the feedlot. Problem is - the animals grow faster if the pellet is implanted in the muscle tissue; typically the hip. Remember that "muscle" is what we call "meat". I would guess that at least half of implants are done in the hip and/or more than twice. You should also remember that in the processing plants, discolored or obvious injection sites are supposed to be trimmed out. Good trim goes into hamburger - "bad" trim goes no telling where. I also would recommend "Deadly Feasts" from amazon regarding BSE(mad cow disease).

-- jeanne (jeanne@hurry.now), May 21, 1999.

Yes Rick, I can spell hormones. For HORMONES, read Dr. Theo Colburn's book Stolen Future. It's about hormones and endocrine disrupters. Diet for a New America, has a good section on how homones disrupt the normal growth of children, which accounts for growing pubic hair and breasts in both young boys and girls.

I am not a scientist by any means. But I do research for a local environmental group, and I study the connection between chemicals and the food chain almost everyday in general way. The one point I would like to make is this: Chemicals are released into our environment every years by the millioins of lbs. According to Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) in 1991, over 11 million lbs. of toxics were released. This stuff stays in the environment for years and years. Estrogenic chemicals, at low levels, mimic the female hormone estrogen.

For instance, DDT breaks down to DDE, an androgen-blocker. DDT has been banned-true. But it lingers in the environment and is transmitted through breast milk and the placenta, to the next generation of wildlife and human beings. We accumulate DDE after birth from milk, meat, fish and eggs, eaten by these animals. I remember swimming in a lake, when a teenage, as it was being sprayed with DDT. Scary! I guess.

Hormone-disrupting chemicals have been attributed to possibly contributing to birth defects and reproductive problems in humans and wildlife. But even more fightening are the estrogen-mimicking contaminants. And even more frightening, is no one particular chemical, but the stew that accumulates in our bodies.

Here is something to keep in mind. One-half of all the world's cancers occur among people living in industrialized countries, even though we are only one-fith of the world's population. As Susan Steingraber sad iin her book, Living Downstrea, the grandfather of all excuses for not taking action is, "We need more study."

The FDA reports that 3.1 percent of the fruit and vegetables eaten by the public contains pesticides residues above the legal tolerance levels. Add this to the other chemicals we consure and what do you have? When a private, non-government, group studied the percent of residue, the amount was almost double the FDA's study.???? This study did not include meat laced with antibiotics, hormones, steroids and dubious fillers, or seafood or other animal products.

And I won't even touch on carcinogens in water. But after studying contamination to water, to present at a meeting with the DNR, I became so obsessed with fear of water contamination that we had our water tested. It came back contaminated--lots of little lovelies, but worst of all, unacceptable levels of e-coli. We had it tested twice, two different labs, same results. We've had a Berky Water Filter long before Y2k.

I would be glad to answer any questions I can. But I just don't think we should take chances until after long term study of any chemical to be released into the air, water or food chain. The risk isn't worth it.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 22, 1999.

Gilda: I read(forget where) that the European Union countries have, collectively, a 20% LESS prostrate cancer rate as compared to the USA and Canada combined. I don't know the comparison about breast and uterine cancer. I certainly don't blame them for not accepting beef raised with steroids/hormone implants. The FDA and USDA have lost their mission IMHO - they no longer try to protect the public health; they just rubber stamp the approval on what the industry wants - all in the name of a few more cents profit. It is not cost effective for us as a nation - we can all pay a few more cents for our food; for clean, unadulterated food.

-- jeanne (jeanne@hurry.now), May 22, 1999.