Hormonal Growth Promoting Agents in Food Producing Animals

  • Rainer W. StephanyEmail author
Part of the Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology book series (HEP, volume 195)


In contrast to the use of hormonal doping agents in sports to enhance the performance of athletes, in the livestock industry hormonal growth promoters (“anabolics”) are used to increase the production of muscle meat. This leads to international disputes about the safety of meat originating from animals treated with such anabolics.

As a consequence of the total ban in the EU of all hormonal active growth promoters (“hormones”) in livestock production, in contrast to their legal use [e.g. of five such hormones (17β-estradiol, testosterone, progesterone, trenbolone and zeranol) as small solid ear implants and two hormones as feed additives for feedlot heifers (melengestrol acetate) and for swine (ractopamine) in the USA], the regulatory controls also differ sharply between the EU and the USA.

In the EU the treatment of slaughter animals is the regulatory offence that has to be controlled in inspection programs. In the USA testing for compliance of a regulatory maximum residue level in the edible product (muscle, fat, liver or kidney) is the purpose of the inspection program (if any).

The EU inspection programs focus on sample materials that are more suitable for testing for banned substances, especially if the animals are still on the farm, such as urine and feces or hair. In the case of slaughtered animals, the more favored sample materials are bile, blood, eyes and sometimes liver. Only in rare occasions is muscle meat sampled. This happens only in the case of import controls or in monitoring programs of meat sampled in butcher shops or supermarkets.

As a result, data on hormone concentrations in muscle meat samples from the EU market are very rare and are obtained in most cases from small programs on an ad hoc basis. EU data for natural hormones in meat are even rarer because of the absence of “legal natural levels” for these hormones in compliance testing. With the exception of samples from the application sites – in the EU the site of injection of liquid hormone preparations or the site of application of “pour on” preparations – the hormone concentrations observed in meat samples of illegally treated animals are typically in the range of a few micrograms per kilogram (ppb) down to a few tenths of a microgram per kilogram. In the EU dozens of illegal hormones are used and the number of active compounds is still expanding. Besides estrogenic, androgenic and progestagenic compounds also thyreostatic, corticosteroidal and β-adrenergic compounds are used alone or in “smart” combinations.

An overview is given of the compounds identified on the EU black market. An estimate is also given of the probability of consumption in the EU of “highly” contaminated meat from the application sites in cattle. Finally some data are presented on the concentration of estradiol in bovine meat from animals treated and not treated with hormone implants. These data are compared with the recent findings for estradiol concentrations in hen’s eggs. From this comparison, the preliminary conclusion is that hen’s eggs are the major source of 17α- and 17β-estradiol in the consumer’s daily “normal” diet.


Beef Pigs Poultry Hormones Anabolics Food Public Health Consumer Economics Trade dispute Law Hazard Outrage 


  1. Berende PLM, Ruitenberg EJ (1983) Domestication, conservation and use of animal resources. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 191–233Google Scholar
  2. Blokland MH, Zomer G, Sterk SS et al (2004) Identification of a novel pharmacological active agent in an illegal growth promoting preparation. In: Ginkel van LA, Stephany RW, Bergwerff AA (eds) Proceedings EuroResidue V, Conference on residues of veterinary drugs in food, Bilthoven, pp 127–134Google Scholar
  3. Community Reference Laboratory (CRL) (2009a)
  4. Community Reference Laboratory (CRL) (2009b)
  5. Council of the European Communities (1986) OJEC. In: L 275:36–45Google Scholar
  6. Council of the European Communities (2008) OJEC. In: L 318:9–11Google Scholar
  7. Debruyckere G, Sagher de R, Peteghem van C (1992) Clostebol-positive urine after consumption of contaminated meat. Clin Chem 38:1869–1873PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Debruyckere G, Sagher de R, Peteghem van C (1993a) Confirmation of clostebol positive urine samples. In: Proceedings second international symposium on drugs in sports – towards the use of blood samples in doping control, Lillehammer, pp 117–129Google Scholar
  9. Debruyckere G, van Peteghem C, de Sagher R (1993b) Influence of the consumption of meat contaminated with anabolic steroids on doping tests. Anal Chim Acta 275:49–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. European Commission (2009a)
  11. European Commission (2009b) en.htm
  12. European Commission (2009c)
  13. Haisma HJ, Hon de O, Sollie P, Vorstenbosch J (2004) Gene doping, review of the Netherlands Centre for Doping Affairs, Capelle aan de IJsselGoogle Scholar
  14. Hanrahan JP (1987) Beta-agonists and their effects on animal growth and carcass quality. Elsevier, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Heitzman RJ (1992) Veterinary drug residues. Residues in food producing animals and their products: Reference materials and methods, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  16. Heitzman RJ (1994) Veterinary drug residues. Residues in food producing animals and their products: reference materials and methods. Blackwell Scientific, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. AOAC International (2009)
  18. Kootstra PR, Zoontjes PW, Tricht van EF, Sterk SS (2007) Multi-residue screening of a minimum package of anabolic steroids in urine with GC-MS. Anal Chim Acta 586:82–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Le Bizec B, Bichon E, Prevost S, et al (2008) Naturally occurring hormones in the food chain. In: Ginkel van LA, Bergwerff AA (eds) Proceedings EuroResidue VI, Conference on residues of veterinary drugs in food, Bilthoven, pp 111–118Google Scholar
  20. Lu FC, Rendel J, Coulston F, Korte F (1976) Environmental quality and safety. Georg Thieme, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  21. Marchant Forde JN, Lay DC Jr, Pajor EA, Richert BT, Schinckel AP (2003) The effects of ractopamine on behavior and physiology of finishing pigs. J Anim Sci 81:416–422PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Meissonnier E, Mitchell-Vigneron J (1983) Anabolics in animal production. Office International des Epizooties, ParisGoogle Scholar
  23. Nielen MWF, Elliott CT, Boyd SA et al (2003) Identification of an unknown beta-agonist in feed by liquid chromatography/bioassay/quadrupole time-of-flight tandem mass spectrometry with accurate mass measurement. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 17:1633–1641CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Organization WHO (1982) Health aspects of residues of anabolics in meatGoogle Scholar
  25. Reiter M, Walf VM, Christians A, Pfaffl MW, Meijer HHD (2007) Modification of mRNA expression after treatment with anabolic agents and the usefulness for gene expression-biomarkers. Anal Chim Acta 586:73–81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Remy R, Debeuckelaere W (1994) Residues of growth promoting substances in meat. In: Research in the 12 EU Member States, Association des Consommateurs – Test-Achats SC Report prepared on behalf of the European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  27. Rossum van HJ, Stolker AAM, Stephany RW, Ginkel van LA (2000) Determination of residues of oestradiol in edible tissues. In: Ginkel LAv, Ruiter A (eds) Proceedings of the EuroResidue IV Conference on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Food, Veldhoven, pp 944–949Google Scholar
  28. Sabbe J, Beken van der T (2002) The illegal use of growth promoters in Europe – the fight against the illegal use of growth promoters In Europe, AntwerpGoogle Scholar
  29. Sabbe J, Cruysberghs W (2004) Legal implications of residue testing. In: Ginkel LAV, Stephany RW, Bergwerff AA (eds) Proceedings EuroResidue V, Conference on residues of veterinary drugs in food, Bilthoven, pp 101–109Google Scholar
  30. EC Scientific Veterinary Committee (1984) General criteria for the establishment of reference methods for the detection of residuesGoogle Scholar
  31. Serratosa J, Blass A, Rigau B et al (2006) Residues from veterinary medicinal products, growth promoters and performance enhancers in food producing animals: a European Union perspective. RevscitechOffintEpiz 25:637–653Google Scholar
  32. Stephany RW, André F (1999) Results of “hormone” residue analyses of bovine meat and liver imported into the EU and originating from the USA “Hormone Free Cattle Program”, BilthovenGoogle Scholar
  33. Stephany RW, André F (2000) Results of “hormone” residue analyses of bovine meat and liver originating from the USA domestic market, BilthovenGoogle Scholar
  34. Stephany RW, Ginkel van LA (1996) European Union regulatory residue analysis of veterinary drugs: a strategic approach. In: ACS Symposium Series 636. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp 22–30Google Scholar
  35. Stephany RW, Boisseau J, Jülicher B, Caroli S (1996) Presentations of European Union Communities Reference Laboratories: The four European Union CRLs for residues: an overview of output and targets. In: Haagsma N, Ruiter A (eds) Proceedings of the EuroResidue III conference, Veldhoven, pp 149–155Google Scholar
  36. Stephany RW, Sterk SS, Ginkel van LA (2004) Tissue levels and dietary intake of endogenous steroids. An overview with emphasis on 17beta-estradiol. In: Ginkel LAV, Stephany RW, Bergwerff AA (eds) Conference on residues of veterinary drugs in Food, Bilthoven, pp 111–121Google Scholar
  37. Stoev G, Michailova A (2004) Quantitative assessment of the reliability of identification by high-performance liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1031:11–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Stolker AAM, Brinkman UATh (2005) Analytical strategies for residue analysis of veterinary drugs and growth-promoting agents in food-producing animals – a review. J Chromatogr A 1067:15–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Stolker AAM, Zuidema T, Nielen MWF (2007) Residue analysis of veterinary drugs and growth promoting agents. Trends Anal Chem 26:967–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wagner SA, Mostrum MS, Hammer CJ, Thorson JS, Smith DJ (2008) Adverse effects of zilpaterol administration in horses: three cases. J Equine Vet Sci 28:238–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. World Anti-Doping Agency (2009)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bilthoventhe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations