Why The Beef over Hormones?

By Janice Castro

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 Southwest, them's fightin' words.

With reporting by Cristina Garcia/Los Angeles and Adam Zagorin/Paris