Danger of Hormone implants-Bloomberg report

Help Support CattleToday:

OK Jeanne

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2006
Messages
758
Reaction score
0
Location
okla
Sperm Counts Are Low in Men Whose Mothers Ate Beef (Update3)

By Frances Schwartzkopff

March 28 (Bloomberg) -- American men whose mothers indulged in hamburgers and steaks while pregnant have a lower sperm count, suggesting the hormones given to cattle may make people less fertile, researchers wrote in a study.

The concentration of sperm in the semen of men whose mothers ate beef more than seven times a week was 24 percent lower than men whose mothers ate less, said researchers led by Shanna Swan, director of the Center for Reproductive Epidemiology at the University of Rochester in New York.

Men with low sperm counts were three times more likely to have mothers who ate red meat more than seven times a week, the study found. The findings may be the ``tip of the iceberg'' of revelations showing the impact of hormone use among animals, said Frederick vom Saal, a professor of biological sciences at the University of Missouri.

``The risks associated with exposure during development to hormonal residues in beef should be revisited'' by regulators, vom Saal wrote in a commentary accompanying the study, which was published on line today in the journal Human Reproduction.

U.S. and Canadian cattle ranchers routinely use hormones in their livestock, including testosterone and progesterone, to encourage growth. The animals don't metabolize or excrete all of the hormones before being slaughtered, so they remain in the meat in measurable levels. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration sets acceptable levels for the hormones.

Beef Ban

``Growth promotant use in cattle production is safe, and nothing in this epidemiological study changes that fact,'' said Mary Young, the executive director of nutrition for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, in a statement yesterday. ``As a mother and registered dietitian, I can tell you that I am very confident in the safety of beef.''

Europe banned U.S. and Canadian beef in 1988 because of concern that the hormones could affect human health, setting off a trade dispute in which the U.S. responded with trade sanctions of its own. Though the World Trade Organization sided with the U.S. and Canada, Europe has persisted with the ban.

``The European Commission has not yet had the opportunity to review this scientific study, but the first indications suggest that it confirms the European Union's concerns about the health implications of hormones in beef and supports our decision to prohibit the use of growth hormones,'' health spokesman Philip Tod said in an e-mail.

Mothers Questioned

A WTO panel is reviewing an EU claim that the sanctions against it are illegal, and may release an interim report in April. The WTO allowed the U.S. to impose trade sanctions valued at $116.8 million annually and Canada to impose sanctions valued at C$11.3 million ($9.76 million) in the early 1990s. The case is among the longest-running trade disputes between the U.S. and Europe.

Study participants included men whose wives were attending prenatal clinics in five U.S. cities, including Iowa City and Los Angeles. They were asked to donate sperm and to question their mothers about eating habits. A total of 387 men born between 1949 and 1983 participated.

``It's been known for a long time that very low levels of hormones can impact fetal development,'' said Swan, the head researcher, in a telephone interview yesterday. Until now, ``there have been no studies on the effect these hormones might have on reproduction.''

Other Factors

Other factors such as pesticide use and lifestyle may have played a role in lowering sperm counts, and more research is needed, wrote Swan, who has studied environmental effects on reproductive health for two decades.

``Whether prenatal exposure to anabolic steroids is responsible for our findings in whole or in part could be clarified by repeating this study in men born in Europe after 1988, when anabolic steroids were no longer permitted in beef sold or produced there,'' Swan said.

The men's own diets didn't have an impact on sperm quality, and the shape and mobility of the sperm were unaffected, the study showed. Any research relying on self-reported food consumption is prone to error in how that intake is measured.

``It is widely accepted that food recall can be notoriously poor from even a day or a week before, let alone multiple decades,'' said Randy Huffman, vice president of scientific affairs for the Washington-based American Meat Institute, in a statement.

The study ``should be viewed with a giant dose of skepticism,'' he said. ``This appears to be a health study in search of a health problem.''

``I want to make sure that women don't read this and take away a message that they shouldn't eat meat while pregnant,'' Swan said. ``It doesn't hurt to look for organic beef, and it's very important pregnant women get enough protein.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Frances Schwartzkopff in Copenhagen at [email protected]

Last Updated: March 28, 2007 11:02 EDT







Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Trademarks
 

ollie?

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
404
Reaction score
0
OK Jeanne":3eivshod said:
Sperm Counts Are Low in Men Whose Mothers Ate Beef (Update3)

By Frances Schwartzkopff

March 28 (Bloomberg) -- American men whose mothers indulged in hamburgers and steaks while pregnant have a lower sperm count, suggesting the hormones given ......
Jeanne you know better than this.
 

Sage

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 24, 2006
Messages
303
Reaction score
0
Location
Montana
Check out the hormone level in Broccoli and asparagus, better ban the veggies too
 

dun

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
47,334
Reaction score
11
Location
MO Ozarks
The question that this deal brings to mind, is who other then farmers could afford to eat beef more then 7 times a week in the 49-53 period? The very wealthy, and it may be more of the case of the beef eating being an indicator of those that could afford the livestyle that could have caused the issue. Farmers weren;t eating implanted beef I wouldn;t think.

dun
 

3MR

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,379
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
I was wondering the same thing. More than 7 times a week, I wish.......

You know, even if they did though the study really doesnt say anything. They dont mention how much beaf was actually eaten and what else might have been consumed. Maybe they did eat a bit a beef every day, twice on Sunday, but what else did they eat. Maybe it was bad chicken, or wheat bread from China. :lol:
 

Sir Loin

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
2,461
Reaction score
0
Location
SE TN
OK, beef is bad for men, now how about the women?
CHICAGO: Younger women who eat more red meat may be at higher risk of a certain kind of breast cancer, perhaps because of hormonal residues in beef cattle and other factors, according to a published study.
Data from a multiyear study involving the health histories of more than 90,000 US nurses show that “in this population of relatively young, premenopausal women, red meat intake was associated with a higher risk of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer,” said the study from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Hormone receptor-positive tumors are those that carry certain proteins to which hormones, in this case estrogen and progesterone, bind, helping them grow. Those kinds of tumors have been on the increase in the United States, especially among middle-aged women.
Source: http://mywomenblog.com/2006/11/16/ladie ... st-cancer/
What a crock!
 
OP
OK Jeanne

OK Jeanne

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2006
Messages
758
Reaction score
0
Location
okla
dun":1vkpee8m said:
The question that this deal brings to mind, is who other then farmers could afford to eat beef more then 7 times a week in the 49-53 period? The very wealthy, and it may be more of the case of the beef eating being an indicator of those that could afford the livestyle that could have caused the issue. Farmers weren;t eating implanted beef I wouldn;t think.

dun

I'm wondering how many beef producers put beef into
their own family freezers from which the animal has been
implanted with steroids. We certainly don't...and in fact
I refuse to eat any beef other than our own; when we
"go out" to eat, I always choose seafood or some
vegetarian meal.
The people that demand that the public accept beef
that has been implanted with steroids are really saying
that what the customer wants doesn't count...let's
get real. There's a market for the cheapest level of
beef that can be produced on an industrial scale, and
there's also a market for beef that is from animals that
have not been exposed to antibiotics/steroids-----so
it's evident that both groups of beef producers have
their "constitutent" market. Hooray for choice!
 

dun

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
47,334
Reaction score
11
Location
MO Ozarks
Comment from Drovers Alert:

Calling this report "research" is using the term loosely. Here's how it worked: Adult men who had already conceived children were told to ask their mothers what they ate decades earlier during pregnancy. American Meat Institute vice president of scientific affairs Dr. Randy Hoffman says, "Asking a woman of advanced age to recall with any degree of accuracy her beef consumption patterns 20, 30 or 40 years ago is absolutely absurd." Hoffman also notes that all the men in the study successfully conceived a child without medical assistance. "This appears to be a health study in search of a health problem." — G.H.
 
OP
OK Jeanne

OK Jeanne

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2006
Messages
758
Reaction score
0
Location
okla
dun":3k89jjb0 said:
Comment from Drovers Alert:

"This appears to be a health study in search of a health problem." — G.H.


IMO it is/was an attempt by the EU to justify to the WTO
their resistance to hormone implanted beef -- thus get
out of the WTO sanctions....but again it gets back to
supplying the customer with what they want; not
demanding that they take what you want to supply.

Same idea with the "hormone-assisted" milk production....
the dairy people that wanted to advertise that their milk
was not produced from cows using the hormone were
prohibited----also ben & jerry's ice cream was not allowed
to advertise hormone-free ingredients.....is that crazy
or what??? Restraint of trade in spades in my book.
 

ChrisB

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2004
Messages
1,310
Reaction score
4
Location
MN
I'm wondering how many beef producers put beef into
their own family freezers from which the animal has been
implanted with steroids. We certainly don't...and in fact
I refuse to eat any beef other than our own; when we
"go out" to eat, I always choose seafood or some
vegetarian meal.

The beef we put in our freezer is from implanted animals. I have no doubt that it is safe. When cattlemen and women refuse to eat beef outside of their very own, it sends a bad message to the public. University studies continually show the increased amount of estrogen in implanted beef is miniscule compared to non-implanted beef. Especially when compared to other foods. Most university studies show any health risks attributed to increased horomone levels in our bodies are caused by the fact that people continue to eat more. Not more beef, but more food in general. Research suggests that the cause of girls reaching puberty at an earlier age is most directly related to the increased rate of obesity in weathly countries.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a big proponent of using implants, but the only way I could be paid a premium for not using them would be direct marketing or trying to market cattle through an 'all natural' program which at this point I haven't tried.
 

Jeanne - Simme Valley

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
12,304
Reaction score
1,201
Location
Central Upstate New York
It all boils down to "scare tactics". Offer "healthy" choices, so the general puplic thinks the "other" choice is unhealthy.
Organic this and natural that - all hogwash to convince people the "other" food is unhealthy.
 

I luv herfrds

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
5,770
Reaction score
0
Location
Montana
Rather interesting.
We quit over 12 years ago giving our steers implants. The reason being the steers wieghted 25lbs less then the heifers.
We eat our own beef and sell some to friends.
I always thought that low sperm count was due to hot tubs and tight jockey shorts.
Maybe these scientists were wearing thongs and it cut off the blood flow to their brains. :)
 

cattleluvr18

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2007
Messages
1,508
Reaction score
0
Location
Curtis Nebraska
aint gonna stop me from eatin meat IF i decide to have a kid.

and yeah how do they know it was the meat? they couldnt be just eating meat only so it might be something else. and also they use a whole bunch of chemicals on veggies and there like a sh!t load of veg heads around so why dont they pick on them for once? and i deffenately agree with feelnrite :lol:
 
OP
OK Jeanne

OK Jeanne

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2006
Messages
758
Reaction score
0
Location
okla
Jeanne - Simme Valley":tconp7u4 said:
It all boils down to "scare tactics". Offer "healthy" choices, so the general puplic thinks the "other" choice is unhealthy.
Organic this and natural that - all hogwash to convince people the "other" food is unhealthy.

Jeanne - I'm so surprised by your comment! Are you
really saying that we should NOT be able to tell our
potential & actual beef customers that our beef animals
have not been exposed to antibiotics or steroids?
Surely you jest!!! That sounds almost "un-american"!!!

We can't produce enough beef for the demand and have
decided not to buy more land---and so have a waiting
list of customers....the market is out there and people
are voting with their dollars. Why are you so negative
about this "niche" market that is available to producers?

Customers available in this "niche" market seem to have
the following priorities:
1. no antibiotics & steroids
2. locally produced
3. forage(grass) fed(no grain)
4. organic
(and pretty much in that order of importance, from what
we've learned in the past 10 years). We find that the
last 2 items are not as important as the first two items;
and number 1 is/seems to be an absolute requirement.

It takes all kinds, and each to his own system of production.
When we started out we saw there was no relationship
between the sale barn price and the price of beef in the
grocery store and so decided to go a different route--which
requires significantly different genetics than those people
involved in the cow/calf--stocker--feedlot system of
producing beef. Not everyone has the land or inclination
to do what we are doing---but that is no reason to
say that we should not be able to differentiate our product
from mass-produced beef.

P.S. I think your heifer is quite beautiful. It does not appear
that she would fit in our requirements but looks perfect
for your system. Also looks like you did a great job on
her hair.
 

ollie?

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
404
Reaction score
0
OK Jeanne":1h5mspty said:
Jeanne - Simme Valley":1h5mspty said:
It all boils down to "scare tactics". Offer "healthy" choices, so the general puplic thinks the "other" choice is unhealthy.
Organic this and natural that - all hogwash to convince people the "other" food is unhealthy.

Jeanne - I'm so surprised by your comment! Are you
really saying that we should NOT be able to tell our
potential & actual beef customers that our beef animals
have not been exposed to antibiotics or steroids?
Surely you jest!!! That sounds almost "un-american"!!!

We can't produce enough beef for the demand and have
decided not to buy more land---and so have a waiting
list of customers....the market is out there and people
are voting with their dollars. Why are you so negative
about this "niche" market that is available to producers?

Customers available in this "niche" market seem to have
the following priorities:
1. no antibiotics & steroids
2. locally produced
3. forage(grass) fed(no grain)
4. organic
(and pretty much in that order of importance, from what
we've learned in the past 10 years). We find that the
last 2 items are not as important as the first two items;
and number 1 is/seems to be an absolute requirement.

It takes all kinds, and each to his own system of production.
When we started out we saw there was no relationship
between the sale barn price and the price of beef in the
grocery store and so decided to go a different route--which
requires significantly different genetics than those people
involved in the cow/calf--stocker--feedlot system of
producing beef. Not everyone has the land or inclination
to do what we are doing---but that is no reason to
say that we should not be able to differentiate our product
from mass-produced beef.

P.S. I think your heifer is quite beautiful. It does not appear
that she would fit in our requirements but looks perfect
for your system. Also looks like you did a great job on
her hair.
Surely you jest Jeanne. She didn't say you shouldn't be able to market your cattle as natural. She said it's a bunch of hogwash to imply that "natural or organic" is safer beef. There's no proof that I'm aware of of any sort. Some of the natrual folks still feed chicken litter and it's considered "natrual" . I'll take implanted, grainfed, beef anyday. JMHO.
 

1848

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,687
Reaction score
0
Sounds to me like this could play to the males advantage who is wanting to raise a family... :D A good bull who is less fertile has to jump the female a little more to get the job done... ;-)
 

I luv herfrds

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
5,770
Reaction score
0
Location
Montana
1848 I ain't touching that one! :shock: :lol:
There was a tidbit awhile back about men who eat a total vegan diet also had a low sperm count.
So can these so called experts make up their minds.
 
OP
OK Jeanne

OK Jeanne

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2006
Messages
758
Reaction score
0
Location
okla
Surely you jest Jeanne. She didn't say you shouldn't be able to market your cattle as natural. She said it's a bunch of hogwash to imply that "natural or organic" is safer beef. There's no proof that I'm aware of of any sort. Some of the natrual folks still feed chicken litter and it's considered "natrual" . I'll take implanted, grainfed, beef anyday. JMHO.
------------------------------


Well, that was not the point of my comment.

If a car company advertises that they have side-impact
air bags and "X, Z, Z" car companies don't have them....
is that "hogwash", ie. lying to the public in order to imply
that their product is safer than the other autos????

There is a legal concept called "puffing" regarding advertising..
as I understand it, you can promote your product by making
truthful statements(i.e. this beef has never had any antibiotics
nor steroids), but you can't say things like "this beef enhances
your ability to resist cancer because it is grass fed and
has a higher level of CLA than commodity beef".
(see: http://www.eatwild.com).

You can eat grain-fed, implanted beef all day long---but
I should be able to differentiate my product from yours
without governmental interference...that is until we truly
live under a "jack-booted" facscist, corporatist government
from which any deviation from the corporate welfare will
not be tolerated. Again,JMO.
 

AngusLimoX

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
1,530
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario, Canuckleland
Recent News Release!

" Because of their light skin pigmentation, and elevated hormones, it is now believed by some scientists that Murray Grey cattle may produce beef that leads to blindness in humans".

Now this "news release" has as much fact in it as the one you posted. Should we all advertise that our animals are not MG's?

Who funded the shoddy research you are quoting?
 
Top