The row between the US and Europe over beef products and what is added to them has become a political football, says a Cork biochemist. It should more properly be the subject of debate among scientists and the medical profession.
Prof James Heffron is the associate professor at UCC's biochemistry department. He has taken an interest in the dispute which has led to the EU banning US meat products on this side of the Atlantic and the Americans imposing sanctions on EU produce on their side. The row is simply defined. They say the hormones used to improve cattle are safe. The EU doesn't think so. The standoff could have enormous implications for trade between two of the biggest blocs in the world.
The Department of Agriculture says the dispute started in 1988 when the EU banned the use of six hormones used for growth promotion in US cattle. The ban extended to the importation of live animals or meat to which such hormones had been added. The US and the EU might fight together on various battlegrounds, but when it comes to trade, apparently, the gloves are off. The allies are not that allied in the end.
Last May 14th the US announced it would seek authority from the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to suspend trade concessions to the EU covering trade of about $202 million annually. Early in July, the WTO found that the EU ban had resulted in beef trade losses to the US of $116.8 million each year.
The Americans had no hesitation in applying 100 per cent ad valorem duties to a whole range of EU goods. An Bord Bia estimated that the losses here could run to as much as £10 million. However, because the Americans have revised the list of products they wish to levy, the expectation now is that the impact on Irish products might be no more than £800,000 annually. Irish food and drink exports to the US account for £162 million a year.
The Department of Agriculture and Food has set out its stall quite succinctly. "Irish and European consumers have made their position quite clear in regard to beef treated with hormones - they do not wish to consume hormone-treated product. Also, the interim results of the risk assessment studies reinforce the case for a ban, at least until the final conclusions become available. At the same time we have, of course, an interest in avoiding a damaging trade war with the US. We have fully supported the Commission in its efforts to avoid any trade sanctions and the Commission will continue to explore every possibility in this case," it said.
The Americans are not impressed but the EU has ordered no fewer than 17 scientific studies to assess the possible risks, including the risk of cancer, due to hormone enhancement.
Prof Heffron is quite definite in his view. Add hormones for commercial reasons to perfectly normal cattle and the effect will be to disturb the animal's metabolism. We simply do not know enough, he says, about what the side effects might be.
"We should be taking into account the levels of risk that might ensue. This is an important societal issue - maybe even something about which a referendum should be held. We know about the annual death rate on the roads - we have the figures - but we do not have any definitive figures regarding the risks associated with giving hormones to healthy cattle.
"We have unquantified assurances from the US. My view would be that the chemicals in the air around Cork Harbour caused by industry are less of a threat to human health than that posed by administering hormones to healthy animals which will be consumed by humans," he said. People should be able to buy meat products with packaging telling them clearly what has been added. After that, the consumer has an informed choice to make.
In the US, says Prof Heffron, the additives are called "metabolic mediators". But if you want to call a spade a spade, you are talking about hormones. So what should happen? Coming from a scientific background, he has no doubt in his mind that this row should be removed from the realm of politics and returned to the medico-science arena.
In other words, the heavyweight politicians should back off for a while and allow a productive debate to take place involving people with expertise who might come at the question from an angle not dominated by political trade issues. And he asks - why shouldn't the best scientific minds in Europe and the US get together to discuss the matter? At least then, we might have before us enough evidence with which to arrive at a reasoned decision. Right now, we do not have that evidence, he insists.
In a note setting out his position, Prof Heffron made this observation: "At a recent address by US Congressman Albert Gilman to an invited audience at UCC, Mr Gilman mentioned amongst other things the trade disputes which exist between the US and the EU. During question time, I inquired about the problem posed by the US trade sanctions against the EU caused by the EU's ban on the importation of hormone-treated beef from the US. While the US regards this as a trading and political issue, I believe it is a medico-scientific one.
"Many European scientists consider that it is undesirable to eat hormone-treated beef on both fundamental scientific principles and safety grounds. Hormones are natural chemical messengers which operate in the body to maintain the delicate balance in our biochemcial and metabolic processes, known as homeostasis. I believe it is highly undesirable to administer hormones or drugs to otherwise healthy cattle merely to increase meat content. It is a different matter altogether to give drugs or hormones to animals to cure specific diseases." The message seems to be - don't ask where's the beef - ask what's in it.