Hormones: Should They Be Used in Agriculture?

During recent years, there has been debate over the use of sex or growth hormones in livestock such as cattle and sheep. Agricultural producers use these hormones to increase the animals’ growth rate and the efficiency of the conversion of the consumed feed into meat (Food-Producing). However, there are several public health experts and consumer advocates who argue to limit such use because they worry that excess hormones contribute to cancer, early puberty in girls, and other health problems (Storrs). Though there is opposition to the issue of hormone usage and a ban has even been placed in Europe, the FDA approves of hormone drugs in livestock because studies have shown that treated animals do not harm people, the animal itself, or the environment (Food-Producing). Because the use of hormones are not shown to be detrimental to human health and in fact benefit the environment, agricultural producers should not be banned from using hormones in beef and dairy products.

Hormone use in livestock scarcely affects human health because the levels of hormones do not change significantly before and after treatments (Katiraee). The amount of hormones animals naturally produce is much greater than the added amount, and humans also naturally produce much more than a cow with added estrogen (Katiraee). Specifically, a non-pregnant woman produces five million nanograms of estrogen a day while a child produces forty thousand; in comparison, 1.1 pounds of beef from a cow with added estrogen only has 11 nanograms of the hormone (Katiraee). Therefore, consuming meat with added hormones will not increase one’s hormone levels significantly. As for hormone usage impacting human development, though children have been showing signs of puberty at an earlier age than before, data shows that this trend has begun decades before hormones were introduced to agricultural practices and is seen in countries where rbST, a milk-producing hormone, has not been introduced (Katiraee).

Although agricultural hormones have the potential to affect the environment in detrimental ways, there are more impactful benefits from their usage. Exposure to estrogen is one way in which hormones can negatively impact the environment; estrogens find several pathways into the environment, and animal waste is identified as a main source (Adeel). As a result of these rising levels of estrogen, fish and domestic animal life can be disrupted (Adeel). In contrast to these negative effects, using hormones benefits the environment by decreasing the feed amount, water and land use, and greenhouse gas emissions, effectively reducing beef and dairy products’ carbon footprint (Katiraee). Additionally, due to continual advancements in technology and discoveries being made even at this moment, future studies may identify an issue not found in previous ones. Nonetheless, because hormones benefit the environment more than they harm it, their use greatly influences almost every aspect of life and outweighs the cons of slight amounts of estrogen added to the biosphere. Therefore, even with the risk of a problem being discovered later, agricultural hormone usage should still be allowed because of its outstanding benefits to the environment.

Works Cited

Adeel, Muhammad, et al. “Environmental Impact of Estrogens on Human, Animal and Plant

Life: A Critical Review.” Environment International, Pergamon, 29 Dec. 2016,

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412016304494.

Katiraee, Layla. “Added Hormones in Poultry, Pork, Beef, and Dairy.” SciMoms, 28 Mar.

2019, scimoms.com/hormones-in-meat/.

Medicine, Center for Veterinary. “Steroid Hormone Implants Used for Growth in

Food-Producing Animals.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, 23 July 2019,

www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/product-safety-information/steroid-hormone-implants-us

ed-growth-food-producing-animals.

Storrs, Carina. “Hormones in Food: Should You Worry?” Health.com, 22 Oct. 2011,

www.health.com/health/article/0,,20458816,00.html.