BUSINESS, Page 44Why the Beef over Hormones?Europe says its meat ban is based on real medical concerns, butU.S. cattlemen call it groundless and protectionist
Is eating U.S. beef hazardous to one's health because of the
hormones that most American ranchers give their cattle? The case
for fear is flimsy, yet it has set off a rancorous and potentially
costly trade battle between the U.S. and the European Community.
The fray officially began Jan. 1, when the E.C. banned imports
of meat from animals treated with growth-inducing hormones. Since
more than half the 35 million U.S. cattle sent to market each year
receive at least a small amount of hormones, the ruling blocked
European imports of $140 million worth of American beef. The Reagan
Administration immediately struck back, imposing 100% tariffs on
$100 million worth of West German hams, Italian tomatoes and other
foods. Last week the E.C. said in effect that unless the dispute
is resolved by the end of January, it will counter-retaliate with
100% tariffs on $100 million worth of U.S. walnuts and dried
fruits.
Europeans became fearful of hormone supplements in the early
1980s after the synthetic hormone diethylstilbestrol, or DES, was
detected several times in baby food made with veal. (The
growth-inducing compound, which has been linked to cancer and birth
defects, was banned in the U.S. in 1979.) Amid the furor, four
countries prohibited all hormone use in cattle. The E.C. adopted
the restriction in 1985, and this month banned the importation of
hormone-treated meat.
E.C. officials insist the ban is nothing more than a
regulation designed to protect the public health. They see the law
as nondiscriminatory, since all nations exporting meat to Europe
must meet the same requirement. Such major beef exporters as
Argentina, Australia, Brazil and New Zealand have agreed to ship
only hormone-free meat to the Community, even though they may agree
with the U.S. that the restriction is too broad.
Besides barring demonstrably dangerous drugs, the E.C. is
preventing importation of many benign compounds that play a
significant role in the U.S. cattle industry. For nearly 30 years,
American feedlot operators have promoted weight gain in young
steers and heifers by giving them implants of natural and synthetic
animal hormones, including testosterone and progesterone.
Manufactured by Eli Lilly, Syntex and other U.S. pharmaceutical
firms and approved by the Food and Drug Administration for
controlled use, the hormone pellets are implanted in the animal
under the skin behind the ears. The small time-release capsules
slowly dole out the hormones over several weeks during key growth
stages. By eliminating as many as 21 days of feeding time before
the animals reach the target weight of about 1,000 lbs., the
hormone treatments (cost per implant: about $1) save the cattlemen
approximately $20 per head, which can be the difference between
profit and loss. Producers maintain that the hormones not only help
keep U.S. beef prices down but also turn out the leaner meat
preferred by consumers nowadays.
No scientific evidence has been found that such hormones,
administered properly, cause adverse health effects in people who
consume the meat. Yet E.C. officials have brushed aside U.S.
contentions that the hormones are safe. "Where there is doubt,
there must be a total ban to protect consumers," declared Bart
Staes, a spokesman for a group of European environmental and
political parties that oppose hormone use. The E.C. established a
scientific panel to study the issue, but disbanded the group before
it could report its findings.
Many American beef growers maintain that European meat is more
dangerous than the U.S. product. While conceding that some American
feedlot operators have been cited for improperly administering
approved hormones, the U.S. growers point out that the E.C. ban has
fostered a thriving black market among European cattlemen in older,
more dangerous compounds like DES. Some growers inject their herds
with illicit drugs to cut costs. Last week a Belgian consumer
magazine reported a survey of 500 butcher shops in which 25% of the
hamburger samples tested contained DES and other illegal chemicals.
U.S. trade officials contend that the E.C. ban is motivated in
large part by protectionism, since European beef producers are
raising more cattle than they can sell locally or abroad. E.C.
nations added 140,000 tons of excess beef to meat-locker stockpiles
last year, bringing the total surplus to more than 723,000 tons,
or nearly two months of European consumption.
The E.C. is likely to leave U.S. cattlemen with a surplus of
liver, sweetbreads and other specialty meats that are popular in
Europe. But the American beef industry can probably make up for the
lost European business elsewhere, since U.S. producers export more
than $1 billion worth of beef every year to Asia, Mexico and
Canada, or ten times the value of the meat shipped to the E.C.
What worries U.S. cattlemen more is the possibility that the
hormone dispute will raise new questions about the healthfulness
of American steaks and hamburgers at a time when beef producers are
struggling for the hearts and grills of U.S. consumers. Because of
studies linking health problems with a heavy diet of red meats,
Americans have reduced their average consumption of beef since 1976
by 23%, from 94.4 lbs. to 72.5 lbs. a year. As a result, ranchers
have already reduced their herds by about one-fourth.
As the trade battle escalates, it will hurt other agricultural
producers, from dairy farmers in Denmark to nut growers in
California's Central Valley. Trade officials on both continents are
worried that the transatlantic range war has got out of hand, but
so far no one is budging on the beef issue. The E.C. insists that
no compromise is possible unless the U.S. accepts the hormone ban.
And from the St. Paul stockyards to the vast feedlots of the
