There was a report released by the Hudson Institute on the environmental benefits of growth-promoting hormone implants in beef production. Keep in mind that the Hudson Institute is, at heart, a political organization.  Also keep in mind that many other sources of information are too.

I read the entire report.  It has lots of good statistics that address some of the perceived harm of traditional beef production practices.  However, it is definitely a paper with an agenda.  The credibility of their facts is severely hampered by the blatant slant toward discrediting the grass-fed and natural movement.  Shame on them for referencing an economic model from the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture and implying that their stance is supported by that institution.  The original model from Iowa State is a paper for farmers who are considering conversion to organic or natural beef production.  The Hudson report leads one to believe that it is upon this report that the environmental claims are based.  In actual fact, the Hudson report references to “the model” more often refer to their own model, than to Iowa State’s.  The Iowa State model does not address environmental impact in any way. 

The big flaw I see is that they do not address the carbon benefit of the grasslands the cattle are grazing, nor do they address the carbon footprint of raising the grain that the cattle are fed.  I suspect pasture-raised overall has a lower impact.  I’d love to see a truly unbiased analysis.

I also suspect that beef prices would be much higher and less people able to afford beef if it all was grass-finished.  The two types of production don’t need to be antagonistic. There is a place for traditional and a place for alternative. 

I support agriculture broadly, and hate to see it tainted by misconceptions.  There are plenty on both sides of this issue.  As always, the best we can do is gather information and make decisions for ourselves, to the best of our ability.  Here are some of the facts, as plain as I can present them, about beef and hormones:

·         Three synthetic and three naturally occurring hormones are used as implants in beef cattle.  Only the three synthetic hormones can be tested and are routinely tested for residues. 

·         Levels of naturally occurring hormones are not routinely tested in implanted cattle.   In studies, the range from implanted cattle is within that seen in non-implanted cattle, but averages 30-50% higher.

·         Perspective:  one pound of beef from an implanted steer has 1/20^th the amount of estradiol as a hen’s egg, and is 1/15,000^th the amount produced in a man’s body each day.  Many plants, such as soybeans and potatoes, have phytoestrogens at much higher levels.

·         A number of breast cancer researchers have suggested that the existing safe limits on exposure established by the FDA are too high.  However, even the lower limits they suggest would still not be exceeded by normal consumption of traditionally produced beef.

·         The EU (European Union) has a ban on hormone-treated beef from the U.S.  The WTO (World Trade Organization) has found the current EU ban on U.S. hormone-treated beef to be an illegal trade barrier, in violation of international trade rules and not based on sound science.

·         The use of implants can decrease the tenderness of beef up to 25% and tends to decrease the marbling.

·         The use of implants increases the efficiency with which cattle convert any feedstuff to lean muscle tissue.  Less feed equals less manure.  Less feed equals lower production costs and more affordable food.