The beef about hormones

The Brexit beef about hormone-treated meat, proves that a) not all subjects sound very interesting at first and b) the consumer, like the voter, is sovereign. This has been true in the hormone debate for over forty years.

The EU first voted to ban food treated with hormones in 1979. It was a sweeping 177:1 resolution, but it was not, strictly speaking, one based on science alone. While half-scandals about premature puberty and roided-up veal in baby food were making European consumers nervous, MEPs — directly elected for the first time just two years earlier — looked to consolidate their new politic. Alas, the social pressures that influenced this young parliament came from lobbies rather than evidence.

Domestic action began a couple of years later, and, 1989, the EU fully disallowed all imports of foodstuffs treated with growth promotants. Things became contentious when, in 1998, the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled the decision invalid according to the European Council’s own rules:

“The absence of such risk assessment, when considered in conjunction with the conclusion actually reached by most, if not all, of the scientific studies relating to the other aspects of risk noted earlier, leads us to the conclusion that no risk assessment that reasonably supports or warrants the import prohibition embodied in the EC Directives was furnished to the Panel.”

Riveting stuff.

Since, there has been a back-and-forth of appeals, consultations, and aggressive trade strategies. After the EU agreed to import non-enhanced beef from the US, the latter’s retaliatory tariffs — punishment for the WTO ruling — were relaxed for a time. In 2016, however, the US Trade Representative reinstated sanctions as a strong-arm against the EU. It was an obvious and obnoxious shield bash into the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) foray. Note this.

Many TTIP-sceptics voted Leave in anticipation of EU propitiation and a downturn in regulatory framework for the UK, whether it be food standards or digital rights. Many more, conversely, voted Leave to cheerlead UK-US trade.

(One wonders which of these valid opposites are “the will of the people”, but there you go. That’s binary referenda for you.)

In every case: vast political entities arguing like shareholders in a boardroom. Brexit. TTIP. The chlorine debate. Although these arguments are framed as scientific or ethical, they are battlegrounds for governments who differ on what their publics will buy, whether it be food, healthcare, or foreign aid.

In my previous article on chicken chlorination, I explained that the EU codifies food standards according to precautionary principles. It only allows food that has been proven safe. In the US, however, anything except that which is proven dangerous can be sold as food. There is, strictly speaking, no difference between what constitutes science in the US and EU, but there is a significant difference of attitude towards that science.

This attitude is not just any old soul’s. It is that of the standards legislator who measures all in taxes and trade revenue. A bleak premise, I grant you.

It means there is a total overlap of market and electorate. Of consumers and voters. The nature and history of the argument shows this. It means, if we are to bend over for total neoliberalism, that our market demand is as potent as our ballot. Perhaps, said the cynic, more so.

In 2003, the American Journal of Agricultural Economics tested US consumers’ willingness to pay for Irish, Norwegian, US hormone-free, and US hormone-treated beef with experimental auctions. Hormone-treated beef received the lowest mean bid, yet 28 per cent of the participants were indifferent or preferred US hormone-treated to US hormone-free beef. That means just over a quarter of market intentions purchase more than 80 per cent of beef in the US.

Imagine what the remaining 72 per cent could do with some forethought. Indeed, more recent analysis found that organic poultry and meat is the fasting growing industry in the sector. Consumers, it turns out, can choose what to buy, influencing retailers with everyday decisions. This is true in the US and a future UK with whom it might trade.

This is good news, because, if the UK starts importing juiced-up coos, it’s going to include some bull. In 2002, a report by the EU’s Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health (SCVPH) concluded: “There is a substantial body of evidence suggesting that estradiol 17-β has to be considered as a complete carcinogen (exerts both tumour initiating and tumour promoting effects)”. It wasn’t just a few studies they looked at either. It was seventeen. Big ones.

In the event that hormonally-enhanced beef arrives at our shore, there will, as always, be an opportunity for consumers to shop wisely and make their intentions clear. Wherever the pounds and pennies go: that will be the will of the people.