Hygeia AnalyticsLogo

Menu

Skip to content
  • Home
  • About Hygeia
    Analytics
    • Dynamic Presentations
    • Keywords and Site Map
    • Hygeia Analytics – Who We Are
    • Why Hygeia?
    • Funding and “Sound Science”
    • Acronyms and Glossary
    • Sign-Up for Updates
  • Nutrition
    • Introduction and Nutrition 101
      • Good Fat Bad Fat
      • Fatty Acids
        • Primer on the Fatty Acids in Milk
      • Impact of Livestock Feeding
    • Antioxidants
      • Organic Farming Elevates Antioxidants
      • Maximizing Antioxidant Intake
    • Organic vs. Conventional Foods
      • Milk and Dairy Products
        • 2018 Grassmilk Paper
        • PLOS ONE Study
        • Dairy Meta-Analysis
      • Multi Food Meta-Analyses
        • Meat Products
        • Plant-Based Foods
        • Smith-Spangler et al.
        • Dangour et al.
        • The Organic Center Report
      • Food Specific Comparisons
        • General
        • Fruits and Vegetables
        • Wine and Wine Grapes
    • Considering Nutritional Quality
      • Impact of Genetics and Production Systems
      • New Tool for Food Security
      • Transforming Jane Doe’s Diet
      • Nutritional Quality Index
    • Nutrient Decline
    • Other Choices and Challenges
      • Human Health
      • Dietary Choices
  • Pesticides
    • Usage
      • Pesticide Use Data Sources
        • Pesticide Use Indicators
      • PUDS – The Pesticide Use Data System
    • Dietary Risks
      • The Dietary Risk Index (DRI)
    • Risk Assessment and Regulation
      • Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
      • Glyphosate/Roundup Case Study
      • The Lowdown on Roundup
      • Does Glyphosate/Roundup Cause Cancer?
      • 2019 Glyphosate Genotoxicity Paper
    • Impacts of GE on Pesticide Use
    • Environmental, Human Health, and Other Impacts of Pesticides
  • Ag Biotech
    • Key Historical Documents – Donald Duvick
    • Key Historical Documents – Arpad Pusztai
    • Herbicide Resistant Crops
    • Weed Resistance
    • Bt Transgenic Crops
    • Resistant Insects
    • Health Risks and Safety Assessments
    • Regulation of GE Crop Technology
    • Marketing, Economics, and Public Relations
    • Patenting and Intellectual Property Issues
    • Labeling
  • Other Issues
    • Animal Products
    • The Future of Food
    • Global Food Security
    • Natural Resources and Climate Change
    • Alternatives to Industrial Ag
    • Policy and Politics
    • Scientific Integrity
    • Soil Health
    • Yields
  • Recent Posts
    • Hot Science
    • In The News
    • Hygeia’s Blog
  • Special
    Coverage
    • Organic Apples in Washington State
    • Dicamba Drift Crisis
    • Organic Food Consumption Lowers Cancer Risk
    • Organic Integrity

Hormone Growth Promoters Fed to Beef Cattle Linked to Adverse Impacts on Male Sexual Development

Posted on December 14, 2016 in Animals | 192 Views

Almost all beef cattle entering feedlots in the United States are given hormone implants to promote faster growth.  The first product used for this purpose – DES (diethylstilbestrol) – was approved for use in beef cattle in 1954.  An estimated two-thirds of the nation’s beef cattle were treated with DES in 1956 (Marcus, 1994, cited in Swan et al., 2007).

Today, there are six anabolic steroids given, in various combinations, to nearly all animals entering conventional beef feedlots in the U.S. and Canada:

  • Three natural steroids (estradiol, testosterone, and progesterone), and
  • Three synthetic hormones (the estrogen compound zeranol, the androgen trenbolone acetate, and progestin melengestrol acetate).

Anabolic steroids are typically used in combinations.  Measurable levels of all the above growth-promoting hormones are found at slaughter in the muscle, fat, liver, kidneys and other organ meats.  The Food and Drug Administration has set “acceptable daily intakes” (ADIs) for these animal drugs.

Questions and controversy over the impacts of these added hormones on human development and health have lingered for four decades.  In 1988 the European Union banned the use of all hormone growth promoters.  The ADIs on the books for years are based on traditional toxicity testing methods and do not reflect the capacity of these drugs, which are potent endocrine disruptors, to alter fetal and childhood development.  According to Swan et al. (2007) –

“…the possible effects on human populations exposed to residues of anabolic sex hormones through meat consumption have never, to our knowledge, been studied.  Theoretically, the fetus and the prepubertal child are particularly sensitive to exposure to sex steroids…”

This gap in research is remarkable, given that every beef-eating American for over 50 years has been exposed to these hormones on a regular basis.  To begin to explore possible impacts, Swan et al. (2007) carried out a study assessing the consequences of beef consumption by pregnant women on their adult male offspring.  The families included in the study were recruited from the multicenter “Study for Future Families” (SFF).

The study team assessed sperm quantity and quality among 773 men.  Data on beef consumption during pregnancy was available from the mothers of 387 men.  These mothers consumed, on average, 4.3 beef meals per week, and were divided into a high beef consumption group (more than seven meals per week) and a low-consumption group (less than 7 per week).

The scientists compared sperm concentrations and quality among the men born to women in the high and low beef consumption groups.  They found that:

  • Sperm concentration (volume) was 24.3 percent higher in the sons of mothers in the “low” beef consumption group.
  • Almost 18 percent of the sons born to women in the high beef consumption group had sperm concentrations below the World Health Organization threshold for subfertility – about three-times more than in the sons of women in the low consumption group.

The authors concluded that –

“These findings suggest that maternal beef consumption is associated with lower sperm concentration and possible subfertility, associations that may be related to the presence of anabolic steroids and other xenobiotics in beef.”

The findings of this study lend urgency to the long-recognized need for the FDA to reconsider the acceptable daily intakes of hormones used to promote growth in beef feedlots.  This reassessment will, in all likelihood, be resisted by the animal drug and beef industries, and once begun, will take many years to be carried out.  In the interim, families wanting to avoid the risk of developmental problems in their male children can do so by choosing organic beef.

Source: “Semen quality of fertile US males in relation to their mothers’ beef consumption during pregnancy”

Authors:  S.H. Swan, F. Liu, J.W. Overstreet, C. Brazil, and N.E. Skakkebaek

Journal: Human Reproduction, Advance Access published online March 28, 2007.  Access the full text at –

 

 

 

Posted in Animals | Tagged Hormones, Human Health, Meat

Related Posts

Research Links Childhood Stress to the Microbiome in Pregnancy, and Suggests Protective Role of Omega-3 Fatty Acids→

FAQs re Biden-Harris Ag and EPA Transition Priorities→

Neonic Seed Treatments in the (Science) News→

Dr. Benbrook Testifies Before the Philadelphia City Council as they Consider Glyphosate Ban→

Guest Blog: The Big Meat Gang Is Getting Awfully Smelly→

Consumer Reports Takes on Reducing Pesticide Dietary Risks→

Roundup is Safe Enough to Drink, Right?→

Guest Blog: Bandaids, Immunological Chaos, and Living With COVID-19 in the Neighborhood→

©2016 Hygeia-Analytics.com. All Rights Reserved.

Menu