Talk:Beef hormone controversy

And the appeal?
The Section titled "WTO panel decisions and E.U. appeal" is a mere recital of the decision, but says nothing about the appeal. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The the panel decision and its appeal was adopted as the decision. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

What claim to new scientific evidence in 2004?
Under the section heading “E.U. claims to new scientific evidence in 2004”, the article provides no indication of what the alleged evidence was or what it specifically pertained to, or where one can find the claim. The EC published on SCVM measures related to hormones in bovine meat and meat products in 1999, 2000 and 2002, and published an Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain in 2004 and another in 2007. The opinion published in 2004 focused on zearalenone in animal feed. (However, zearalenone is not deliberately administered to beef cattle, but may be an inadvertent contaminant in feed colonized by some Fusarium species. Although it is relevant to the topic of hormones in food, it is not part of the beef hormone controversy.) The second sentence under the above section heading is “The EC made the scientific claim that the hormones used in treating cattle remain in the tissue, specifically the hormone, 17-beta estradiol”. The sentence cites the EC 2007 Opinion published in EFSA Journal 510: 1-62. Not only is that opinion not dated 2004, but the opinion explicitly did not introduce any new claim regarding estradiol, as that substance was outside the mandate under which the opinion had been solicited. I have not been able to find in that publication any mention of an EC (or EU) claim made in 2004 of new scientific evidence relevant to the article topic.

Apart from the 2007 Opinion, the only other citation in this article section is a 2003 Bridges reference mentioning the 2003 European Parliament and Council action of September 22, 2003. That action amended Council Directive 96/22/EC. The only scientific claims referenced in that amendment were not new in 2003; they are found in the references cited above which were dated 1999, 2000 and 2002.

With regard to 17-beta estradiol, it might be appropriate somewhere in the article to mention the analysis of Andersson and Skakkebæk (1999) which critiqued the basis of JECFA and US FDA views.

An important aspect of some EC claims since the 1998 WTO decision is allegation of risk to human health while claiming inability to identify safe thresholds. This is in contrast to JECFA of the FAO/WHO which did establish MRLs. In an article on the beef hormone controversy, it would seem appropriate to address this aspect of the EC claims and the position taken by JECFA, and the safety-related positions taken by US FDA, Health Canada, Australia Department of Health and Ageing, and the UK Food Standards Agency. Schafhirt (talk) 05:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I see no reliable source referring to new scientific claims made in 2004, thus it has been removed. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beef hormone controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719175735/http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/Factsheet/Diet/fs37.hormones.cfm to http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/Factsheet/Diet/fs37.hormones.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Beef hormone controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060507015411/http://www.beef.org/documents/hormone_implants.doc to http://www.beef.org/documents/hormone_implants.doc
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040521163213/http://foodsafetynetwork.ca/course/videos/fsinttrade/wto.pdf to http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/course/videos/fsinttrade/wto.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070611022525/http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/11379/HORMrev.pdf to http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/11379/HORMrev.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080129204303/http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/policy/hormone.html to http://www.fas.usda.gov./itp/policy/hormone.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080306004833/http://ec.europa.eu./external_relations/us/summit_05_00/hormone_case_summary.htm to http://ec.europa.eu./external_relations/us/summit_05_00/hormone_case_summary.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)