UK will be told to lift ban on hormone-treated beef to join key trade bloc, leaked memo suggests

23 comments
  1. Of course. Is this unexpected?

    Note how the sovereignty argument comes crashing down when exposed to reality: no limitations on how to “set our own rules” were acceptable when the UK was leaving the EU, where those rules are arrived at through a continuous political process, but these same limitations, but much more inflexible, will reappear every time you sign a free trade agreement. And, of course, the original argument only made sense if the objective was to deregulate, because EU regulations are always minimum standards to which you must comply.

    None of this should be surprising in the least, especially with the precedents set in the Australia deal. You will give more to get less, and be forced to lower standards and protections in the process, all for minute or even non-existent economic gains. The effect could very well be negative, because accepting this meat will create additional phytosanitary checks and regulatory barriers for all food products exported to the (far more important) EU market. Note that this is before you look at the negative effects on food safety and public health.

  2. It’s ok no one can afford beef any more. I’d quite like to keep a few antibiotics for medical purposes instead of fattening cattle.

  3. I will not eat anything that has been banned and especially when something that had been banned then lifted when they fuck up . Guess I’m leaving the carnivore group.

  4. No one going to make any jokes about “hormone treated beef”? Okay I’ll go first

    Johnson can suck my hormone treated beef…

  5. Ah yes, the CPCPP

    thank god we’re joining this new trade bloc. It’s going to be amazing.

    We currently trade less with, every single country combined than we do.. the Netherlands.

    Netherlands = 85 bn.

    Japan, Canada, Australia, Peru, Mexico, Malaysia, NZ = 72bn

    Big brain move

  6. I’m loving all this control we’ve taken back.

    Sewage on beaches and having to surrender our food standards to Canada.

    Makes you proud to be British.

  7. All of you lot making these silly comments about not eating beef again you do realise you’ve already been consuming bovine growth hormones because beef and dairy cattle produce it anyway in meat and milk!

  8. I love how one mention has got everyone to state that this will definitely happen the UK will definitely do it.

    This definitely feels more like a test to see how far the UK would be willing to go and where they draw the line.

  9. Really well Australia or whoever else wants lower standards to get a trade deal can do one, substandard shite and hormone enhanced beef products not needed, should of never of left the EU which has higher standards

  10. Interesting how the UK was so desperate to leave one trading block. Only to be desperate to join another one as soon as possible.

  11. I know a bit about this topic and just wanted to give some insight. There are three issues people have with such meat (1) Human health (2) Animal health (3) Environmental health. This isn’t my *specific* field of expertise, but something I touch on occasionally.

    1. Human health – the risk is incredibly low. A commonly used hormone is Estradiol-17B and the amount present in hormone treated beef is about 20% above non-treated beef, both of which are a tiny fraction of what the body normally produces and dwarfed by the natural variation in your body’s amount of it anyway. IIRC… it’s like 50-400pg/mg for adults (depending on sex, cycle etc) and that varies hugely day to day etc. and a beef steak would have <1% of that. Might be remembering my numbers wrong there though! *However*, this hormone is considered a ‘complete carcinogen’ (but a weak one). Obviously this is *one* hormone and I’m less versed in others.
    2. The animal health side is an issue as and if animals grow too quickly and their skeleton cannot support the mass or the skeleton does not grow properly. This doesn’t appear to be a major issue for cattle health, though we have seen issues with quick growth in chicken.
    3. This is the one that concerns me as it’s a bit of a unknown. Hormones running of from cattle fields into water ways can have impacts of aquatic life (and also terrestrial invertebrates). It’s a tad tricky as each farm is unique (how close to water systems, if there are buffers etc).

    The *benefit* of hormone treatment of cattle is quicker growth rates which mean lower costs *and* lower emissions.

    Admittedly, my opposition to hormone treated beef reduced dramatically the more I learnt about it. Mainly because the problems weren’t where I thought they were. However, I am still broadly against them because (1) It’s unecessary procedures on animals (2) Environmental risks (3) There are ways we can reduce livestock emissions that should come ahead of this (4) I’m generally hesitant about messing too much with animal biology.

  12. Brexit is a textbook example of “play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”

    Our relationship with the European Union was key to protecting us from deregulation.

  13. I was thinking ok well we need a clear label on things but then I realised I pretty much don’t cook beef at home, like a few burgers on a barbeque and maybe a reduced steak pie but other than that it’s all from restaurants/fast food places(it seemed weird to call these restaurants) and they aren’t going to all care if the beef has hormones and stuff with long term effects in it.

Leave a Reply