Narrow victory for growth promotants

Press, 2 June 1989, Page 16

Narrow victory for growth promotants

A remit calling for growth promotants in beef to be banned was defeated by just one vote at the annual conference of North Canterbury Federated Farmers.

The remit, proposed by the Springston branch, was supported by 20 meat and wool section delegates and opposed by 21.

Mrs Adrienne Bonniface said she moved the remit to "save our meat industry exports." She was concerned at the possibility of New Zealand meat being banned from European Community markets which had prohibited the use of growth promotants. Growth promotants improved the conversion of feed into lean meat, said Mrs Bonniface. In New Zealand, cattle with growth promotants were killed separately and exported to markets outside the E.C. Mrs Bonniface said if farmers experimented with growth promotants on lambs and their meat reached the E.C. it would have catastrophic results for New Zealand exports. The remit was strongly opposed by Mr Rod McKenzie, of Motunau, who said there was no scientific evidence that

growth promotants were unsafe.

An egg contained 200 times more hormone than a steak from a beast implanted with a hormone growth promotant and a person would have to eat 70,000 steaks before suffering any effects.

The World Health Organisation, the United States Department of Agriculture and the European Community's own expert scientific working committee had confirmed that registered growth promotants were perfectly safe.

Only two per cent of New Zealand's beef exports went to the European Community while the United States and Canada took 85 per cent.

Mr McKenzie said the growth promotant ban in some E.C. countries was backfiring because of a blackmarket trade in promotants. The United States was concerned at the safety of meat treated with unregistered illegal concoctions of these promotants.

The major reason for the E.C. ban was for political and trade purposes. Such decisions should not be based on political whims with total disregard for scientific facts.

“It could be growth promotants today, and selium, pour-ons and drenches tomorrow." said Mr McKenzie.

A ban in New Zealand would discourage research and development investment in areas such as new products to assist leaner lambs, out-of-season lambing, growth rates and wool defleecing.

As well, a ban would encourage the E.C. and other countries to continue using artificial trade barriers, he said.

Speakers in favour of the remit said New Zealand must maintain an image for producing clean, pure food. The use of growth promotants would damage the meat industry because there was an increasing consumer demand for pure food.

Mr Dick Davidson said there was only a small number of New Zealand cattle implanted with growth hormones and sheep were not treated with them.

The issue is likely to be discussed again at the federation’s dominion conference. Remits seeking a ban have been defeated at national level for the last two years.