US beef: Hormone-treated food will not enter UK after US deal – government

13 comments

1. Interestingly, beef in the U.K., which is almost entirely British or Irish outside of the most premium end of the market, is cheaper than US grown beef is in America.

   Even if it were legal here, it would struggle to gain market share apart from top end restaurants and butchers selling the most high end American stuff.

2. Doesn’t matter to me tbh. I’m not eating any yank produce, hormone treated or not.

3. I never understand the idea of reciprocal exports, we send our beef to them and they send their beef here. Why? It’s wasteful and unnecessary.

4. Doesn’t matter to me. I’m making a concious effort to reduce the amount of US imported stuff I buy.

   This trade deal is an absolute disgrace to the UK. We should be cutting ties with the US and focusing on trade deals within Europe/CANZUK.

   Shit like this is why people say Labour is turning into a right leaning party.

5. The problem the US beef has here is that no one will buy it (for many reasons by main one is due to the view that ALL US beef is lower quality than UK while costing more) however the UK can sell its beef to the USA at a higher price than they get here due to beef being more expensive in the USA, while being viewed as higher quality (no hormones etc) so they can charge even more money and more profit for UK farmers.

   It’s actually a good deal for the UK it seems.

6. Say it louder for the thickos at the back please, they still aint got it.

7. How will those who spend more time in the US than here make their commission??

8. Why would it? Aren’t we an exporter of beef. Importing inferior, pricier beef makes no sense

9. We should never eat any US produce, we have enough good food grown in the UK. We need to support our farmers instead of tricking people by putting rejected US products into our food chain.

10. I’ve noticed from posts on other pages that sometimes people mix this up with Genetically Modified beef. GM cattle isn’t approved for human consumption even in the United States (although genetically modified pigs have been approved for food and medical use-labelled [galsafe pigs](https://www.avma.org/javma-news/2021-02-01/fda-approves-genetic-alteration-pigs)).

    With Hormone treated beef, the estrogen hormones (sometimes laballed as steroids) are given through small pellets known as ‘implants’. The aim being to increase profit margins with faster growth, increased fertility, and enhance feed efficiency.

    **The pro-hormone viewpoint** according to [agricultural advisors](https://www.montana.edu/extension/broadwater/blog-article.html?id=20836) who argue against US public concerns over giving hormones to cattle, the implant ‘is a small pellet that is inserted under the skin of the animal’s ear.  It contains a growth stimulant that is slowly released over time.  This stimulant increases the secretion of growth hormones which increase muscle growth. 

    When the animal is harvested, ears are discarded so that the implant will not enter the food supply chain. It is true that implanted cattle contain more estrogen than non-implanted cattle.  However, the difference is only one nanogram (one billionth of a gram) for every three-ounce serving of beef. Many people are unaware that plants also contain estrogen, also called phytoestrogen. This is a naturally occurring compound found in some plants (and foods).’

    The second table onwards [shown here](https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/implants-and-their-use-in-beef-cattle-production.html) lists the most common brands of hormone implants for cattle.

    **To counter this view**, the most common notes the potential difference between naturally occuring estrogens in food and plants, and synthetically created compounds (listed in the above tables) purely for cattle implants. The common comparison of hormones being [potentially lower](https://www.iowabeefcenter.org/information/IBC48.pdf) may be claimed to be misleading as they focus on ‘estrogenic activity’ which may relate to potency but no specific compound or related concerns.

    For example, the use of hormone estradiol-17β, has been [classified as a complete carcinogen ](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1115840/)by the European Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures Relating to Public Health (SCVMPH). This classification suggests that it can initiate and promote tumor growth. ‘even small residues of this hormone carried an inherent risk of causing cancer and that the data available did not allow a quantitative estimate of the risk.’

    As for negative effects in cattle, implants are hormones used to increase growth rate and improve feed efficiency. The likely consequences of administering excessive estradoil or other hormones, esp when considering the SCVMPH report above, may also relate to a potential increase of cancers in cattle, muscle and skin issues, cardiovascular and other organ related problems.

    I suspect also behavioural changes could occur in cattle that don’t react in the way as intended, as well as having a negative impact on fertility to expected, whether it’s cattle [or even humans](https://www.testicularcanceruk.com/post/hormone-free-meat-what-s-the-beef) (estradoil given to cattle is classed as an oestrogens), given hormones help coordinate functions in the body relating to blood to organs, skin, muscles, and tissues. Abnormal effects in young cattle that are not the correct weight would perhaps be more common.

    If hormones are given the green light and introduced, I suspect only a limited number of compounds will be approved, but their abscence would have meant there no risk of these substances leading to soil and water pollution, nor affecting human health or wildlife.

11. Have only been to the states once, Washington and New York in 2018 and nearly fainted at the price of pretty much all food in the the local supermarket, fruit and vegetables where 4 or 5 times as expensive, meat apart from the genetically modified and pumped with hormones was 2 or 3 times more expensive, tinned goods double or more, my partner who was living out there for 4 months was spending massive amounts more just to feel herself than the two of spend to eat better in the UK.
    I do the shopping at home so just spent the entire trips picking my jaw off the floor at the prices.
    She also found that she put on weight and had skin problems despite eating a similar diet to in the UK.
    A month or two after getting back her skin cleared up and she lost the weight just eating as we always did.
    That and the regular gun shots she’d hear really put both her and me off any ideas of moving there 😅

12. (Just one of) The weird thing about Trump is the way he talks about trade like he doesn’t care what is being sold, it is just about the mass/cost of the ‘product’ and it is all “beautiful.” Has anyone checked he isn’t a Conehead?

13. Ideally we would receive their beef and, yes, their ‘chlorine chicken’. Just properly labelled, and restaurants required to do so as well. More choice is good. Tired of this hysteria from Brits when it’s probably completely fine… a bit like if an American were to say, ‘ugh just as long as we don’t get those disgusting DIRTY, UNWASHED British eggs!’ (American eggs are all powerwashed, removing the outer layer, so they need to be refrigerated).

Comments are closed.