Steroid Hormone Implants Used for Growth in Food-Producing Animals

Steroid hormone implants are used in food animals to promote growth. Recently, there has been much debate about the health effects of steroid hormone implants on human health. Some believe these implant-enhanced animal products are safe, while others believe they are harmful to human health. have shown negligible effects when used in veterinary practice trained. Some of the steroid hormones have been approved by different authorities such as FDA for food safety as well as treatment of animals. Small amounts of implants added to the feed of animals present promotion effects on growth at doses that are lower compared to their therapeutic dose. Still, there have been cases, where the use of such steroid hormones has had major concerns in relation to human health impact. This paper is going to look at whether the use of steroid hormones that are often used for enhancing growth in food-producing animals are safe with regards to effect they have on human health.

Introduction

Several veterinary drugs that include steroid hormone implants are used to promote the growth of livestock animals. However, the recent past has seen a lot of concerns in relation to the how safe the livestock products for human consumption and the existence of some level of resistance from antimicrobial following the increased use of such veterinary drugs. This has resulted in calls to have risks assessment measures to be used as an integrative strategy to determine the probability of negative effects such as human illness resulting from ingestion of livestock products that contain residual veterinary drugs like steroid hormone. Steroid hormone and antimicrobials that are used for promoting growth in animals that produce food for humans have provoked increased concerns about how safe such related livestock products consumed by human beings.

The argument is that steroid hormones induce antimicrobial resistant bacteria which in turn ends up interfering with the intestinal flora of humans making it a major concern in relation to the impact the implants have on human health. Regulatory guidance like MRLs and ADIs reflect fully on the effect the steroids have on human gastrointestinal microflora (British Society of Animal Science, 2012). However, before deciding if the steroid hormone are safe or not for human consumption, there is need to have large-scale evidence of antimicrobial resistance risk assessment on the relationship that exists between the use of antimicrobial in animals that are sources of human food and the antimicrobial resistance occurrence in human pathogens (British Society of Animal Science, 2012).

There are several studies in the past that are aimed at determining the real chance of the effect they such drugs have on human health. There are a number of factors that need to be taken into consideration before reaching concluding that steroid hormones impact or do not impact human health. Some of the factors include dose-response relationships, exposure amounts, and the consequences of human illness (Hunter, 2010)

Literature Review

Steroid Hormone Implants is Safe

The FDA, since the 1950s, has approved several steroid hormone implants to be used in beef from cattle and sheep and this includes testosterone, natural estrogen, and progesterone, together with their synthetic versions. These drugs have been observed to increase the growth rate of animals as well as the efficiency by which the feed they eat is converted to meat (Hunter, 2010).

The FDA only approves such drugs after studies or relevant information or both the two have indicated that food coming from animals that have been treated are safe for human consumption, and the implants will not in any way harm the environment or the animals. FDA also has to make sure that the drugs are effective and this means that they perform the way they are intended to. The labeling provided on each product offers all the needed instructions to ensure effective and safe use and that the steroids have been approved by FDA (Hunter, 2010).

For all the steroid hormone implants that the FDA has approved, it also allows the public to access them through its website where it has given a summary of the relevant information related to the drug in question that FDA made use of in determining that the implant is safe to be used on animals, that the product is effective, and that the resulting animal products are safe to be consumed by man (British Society of Animal Science, 2012).

Such steroid hormone implants are normally formulated as implants or pellets that are in most cases placed on the back side of the animals’ ear under the skin of the animal (British Society of Animal Science, 2012). The steroid hormones then slowly dissolve where they have been implanted and they do not have to be later removed. The parts of the animal that have been treated are normally discarded after the animal has been slaughtered and this means that they are not used for any form of human food (British Society of Animal Science, 2012).

The FDA, with the use of scientific data, then comes up with the safe limits that have been accepted for steroid hormones in the animal meat. The human level of consumption that is considered safe is a drug level in the food being consumed that is expected to have no negative effect which can be harmful to humans on the basis of extensive scientific review and studies (Penton, 2015). The withdrawal day of all the steroid implant products that have been approved is zero days. This implies that any food products from such animals are safe to be consumed by humans at any time provided that the animal has undergone the required treatment.

There are no implants that are normally approved to be used for enhancing growth in pigs, veal calves, and poultry. All forms of steroid hormone implants have been made available and can be purchased over the counter in the United States and are in most cases given by livestock producers at specified states of the growth of animals. Unless it is labeled and approved for re-implantation, only an implant for one ear should be given to an animal at a specific growth stage (Storrs, 2016).

Naturally-Occurring Hormones

Some of the Steroid Hormone implants that have been approved are produced naturally throughout life in animals and people. They include progesterone, estrogen, and testosterone (Storrs, 2016). Such natural hormones are important for growth, normal development, and reproduction. They do not pose any risks when people eat food from animals that have been treated with such drugs now that the amount of additional hormone, as a result of drug-treated, is small in comparison with such hormones amount that are found normally in the part of the animals that have not been treated and that are produced naturally by the body of humans (Hunter, 2010)

Synthetic Hormones

The other steroid hormone implants that have been approved are the synthetic versions of the natural hormones and they include zeranol and trenbolone (Hunter, 2010). As the case of natural hormone implants, before they are approved by FDA, FDA normally demands toxicological testing or information or both of them, so as to find out the level of safety in the animal products before they are consumed by humans. Also, FDA has instructed manufacturers to provide proof that the hormone levels left in each tissue, that is edible after being treated, is not above the level of safety that is appropriate. A safe level, as the case of natural-occurring hormones, is the level which is expected not to have any harmful effect when consumed by humans.

Undesirable effects of Steroid Hormone Implants in Treated Animals

In the United States, almost all the cattle meat for beef entering feedlots are normally given hormone implants in an effort to enhance their growth. The first implant that was used for the same purpose was DES (diethylstilbestrol) and was in 1954 used in beef cattle. It is estimated that by 1956, approximately two-thirds of the cattle in the country were treated with DES (Swan et al, 2007).

Currently, several types of steroids are being used for all animals in the United States, in different combinations, entering conventional feedlots in both Canada and the United States. They include three hormones, which are testosterone, estradiol, and progesterone. Three artificial hormones include the androgen trenbolone acetate, the estrogen compound zeranol, and progestin melengestrol acetate. (Gaughan et al., 2005).

Anabolic steroids, in most cases blend each other. The levels of measurement of all the mentioned hormones above that are intended to promote growth are normally found in fats, liver, muscles, and muscle organs. The Food and Drug Administration has come up with an “acceptable daily intakes” (ADIs) for all these animal steroids (Swan, 2007).

Controversy and concerns about the impact of these substances on the health and lives of humans have been on the increase in the last forty years. The European Union prohibited the use of all the hormones that promote growth in 1988. For many years, the ADIs on books have been based on toxicity testing methods that are regarded as being traditional and outdated and they fail to reflect correctly the capacity of such drugs that have been identified as being potent endocrine disruptors now that they alter fetal and well as child development (Swan, 2007).

As per the current studies, the possible impacts of anabolic sex hormones residue on exposed human population through the consumption of meat have not received much attention. According to existing theory, both the prepubertal child and the fetus are specifically sensitive when exposed to sex steroids (Swan, 2007). There exists a remarkable research gap, considering the fact that every American eating beef for more than fifty years has at some point been exposed to these hormones more often. In an effort to determine possible effects, Swan et al. (2007) conducted a study to find out the impact of beef eating targeting pregnant females on their male spring adults. The sample population was picked at ”Study for Future Families” (SFF).

The collecting of information process involved assessing the condition and amount of sperm among 773 sampled men. The data on beef eating during the period of pregnancy was collected from the mothers of 387 men. The sampled women ate approximately 4.3 beef meals every week. There distinguished two groups: a low-consumption group (those who had less than seven meals every weak) and a high consumption group (those who had more than seven meals every week) (National Center for Biotechnology Information, 2010).

The study then made a comparison between sperm quality and concentration among men who were born in low and high consumptions groups. The results of the study indicated that the volume of sperm concentration was about twenty four percent, more in the men born of mothers classified in the group that consumed low beef levels. About eighteen percent of the men born to mothers classified under the group that consumed high beef levels had their levels of sperm concentration that fell below the threshold set by the World Health Organization for subfertility approximately three-times more compared to men born to mothers grouped under those who consume low levels of meat (National Center for Biotechnology Information, 2010)

The findings of the study suggested that the consumption of maternal beef is related to low concentration levels of sperm and chances of subfertility, a relation that can be associated with anabolic steroids presence as well as the rest of xenobiotics present in beef (National Center for Biotechnology Information, 2010). This study questions the long-stand taken by FDA on the safety of steroids hormone implants and calls for the need to reexamine the amount of hormones consumed on a daily basis that is acceptable, used in promoting growth in animals. The findings add to the debates and arguments of the safety of using steroids hormone implants to promote the growth of animals that are consumed by humans and the effect they have on the health of humans.

Conclusion

This study is important following the fact that the use of steroids hormone implants to promote the growth of food-producing animals has in the recent past raised a lot of concerns in relation to the impact they have on human health. This study is out to provide a better understanding of this issue. A better understanding of the risks posed on human health by the use such implants is essential in coming up with regulatory programs and decisions that are in support of prudent hormonal drugs use.

There exist a number of factors that need to be taken into consideration while assessing the risk posed by the steroids hormone implants and they include hazard characterizations, hard identifications, risk characterizations, and exposure assessment. With the use of more scientific background, and taking into consideration the above factors, this research offers relevant information that can be based on when coming up with decisions related to the available risk management options while protecting public health related to the consumption of animal products from growth-enhanced animals.

This means that risk assessment calls for the need to have multidimensional information that includes the relationship between antimicrobial animals use and the resistance by antimicrobial in pathogens found in humans as well as the genetic aspects that are related to the antimicrobial resistance in human and population of animals (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2015). Following the complexities related to assessing the related risks of steroids hormone implants, there is need to come up with risk assessment methodologies that are more appropriate so as to understand better the human health impact of steroids hormone implants in animals to promote their growth.

References

British Society of Animal Science (2012) Hormones in meat. Retrieved on November 9, 2017 from http://bsas.org.uk/articles/animal-briefs/hormones-in-meat

Gaughan, J.B., Kreikemeier, W.M., Mader, T.L. (2005) Hormonal growth-promotant effects on grain-fed cattle under different environments, International Journal of Biometeorology. 49: 396-402.

Hoffman, M., (2008). Understanding Food Safety. Retrieved on November 9, 2017 from. http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/safer-food-healthier-you#1

Hunter, R.A. (2010) Hormonal growth promotant use in the Australian beef industry. Beef Production Science. 50: 637-659.

Hunter, R.A. (2010) Hormonal growth promotant use in the Australian beef industry. Beef Production Science. 50: 637-659

National Center for Biotchnology Information (2010). Risk Assessment of Growth Hormones and Antimicrobial Residues in Meat. U.S. National Library of Medicine. Retrieved on November 9, 2017 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3834504

Penton, Inc., (2015). Facts About Growth Hormones. Retrieved on November 9, 2017 from http://feedstuffsfoodlink.com/story-facts-growth-hormones-75-71791

Storrs, C., (2016). Hormones in Food: Should You Worry? Retrieved on November 9, 2017 from http://www.health.com/health/article/0,,20458816,00.html

Swan, S et al., (2007). ”Semen quality of fertile US males in relation to their mothers’ beef consumption during pregnancy. Human Reproduction

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2015). Steroid Hormone Implants Used for Growth in Food-Producing Animals. Retrieved on November 9, 2017 from http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/ProductSafetyInformation/ucm055436.htm