Hormone-treated beef explained: is it a problem or part of an oven-ready trade deal?

But with dozens of countries “dying to make a deal” for tariff relief, according to Trump, the dormant prospect of a free trade agreement between the UK and US is also back on the agenda.

And with that, so is the spectre of chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef exports to the UK.

It’s a prospect to please the likes of Reform leader Nigel Farage, who recently called for a “broader deal” including agricultural products, arguing consumers should decide whether to buy “labelled” US imports. But for others it would be tantamount to treason.

So what’s the problem here?

The UK food sector’s position on chlorinated chicken is well established, with the British Poultry Council among many food and farming groups dismissing Farage’s “tired argument” out of hand, while stressing “our production standards are not up for negotiation”.

But what about US beef? What’s wrong with its ‘hormone-treated’ meat? Amid soaring beef prices, why is the UK, as a net importer, resistant to US beef? And will the government cave in to US pressure and strike a trade deal to help prevent damaging tariffs on exports?

Typically administered as pellets or ‘implants’ placed under the skin or on the back of the animal’s ear, a variety of both natural and synthetic growth-promoting hormones are used by the US beef sector, according to the Food & Drug Administration.

Safe for humans?

These drugs “increase the animals’ growth rate and the efficiency by which they convert the feed they eat into meat”, the FDA says.

And as with the washing of chicken in chlorine, US regulators insist growth hormones in beef production are safe, with all approved implants having a zero-day withdrawal. This means “meat is safe for humans to eat at any time after the animal is treated”, it says.

About 80% of the US beef herd uses these hormones, according to the United States Cattlemen’s Association (USCA).

Unlike the chlorinated chicken debate – which centres on claims of lower hygiene standards in America’s poultry sector – with bird carcases therefore needing to be washed in the chemical – the UK position on US beef is more nuanced.

It relates more to the historical divergence of production standards between the US and EU, and the UK’s adoption of EU rules following Brexit.

The EC proposed a ban on the use of growth hormones in livestock in 1981, in the wake of a series of scandals across the bloc.

These linked the use of hormones in beef supply chains and their discovery in meat and dairy products to a claimed adverse health impact in humans – including the alarming detection of increased oestrogen levels in Italian schoolboys in the late-1970’s allegedly fed with meat contaminated with badly administered hormone treatments, and the even more disturbing discovery of the hormone in baby food.

Read more: Chlorinated chicken explained - why do the Americans treat their poultry with chlorine?

The eventual implementation of the ban in 1989 accelerated a long-festering dispute on the matter between the EU and US, with the latter arguing there was a lack of evidence to support the move.

A World Trade Organization panel then ruled in 1999 that the ban was not in line with global trade rules – allowing the US to impose retaliatory tariffs against the EU. The EU appealed, winning a partial reversal of the WTO ruling, before a series of EU studies in the early 2000s reinforced its position that hormone use posed potential health risks.

After two decades of acrimony, the EU and US agreed a compromise High Quality Beef Quota (HQB) in 2019, granting some duty-free access for hormone-free US beef.

But the two sides remain at odds on hormone use, and UK governments on both sides of the political divide have continued to support the EU’s position post-Brexit.

What does the US want?

The Trump administration, backed by the powerful US meat lobby, could hardly be clearer on its demands from the UK if a trade deal is to be agreed.

In a ‘fact sheet’ supporting Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ announcement on 2 April, the White House accuses the UK of “maintaining non-science-based standards that severely restrict US exports of safe, high-quality beef and poultry products”.

“For too long, America’s family farmers and ranchers have been mistreated by certain trading partners around the world,” says the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. “President Trump is taking action to address numerous trade barriers that prevent consumers overseas from enjoying high-quality, wholesome American beef.”

Read more on tariffs:

• Trump tariffs: more than half of Brits less likely to buy US food and drink

• UK booze suppliers warn over US tariff impact

• Tariff feedback sought from government as it plots Trump response

Alongside this long-unmovable non-tariff barrier, the US has also “lost all meaningful access to the UK” via the EU High Quality Beef Quota due to Brexit, says Erin Borror, VP for economic analysis for the US Meat Export Federation.

“So now US beef enters the UK at its trade-prohibitive full duty rate [of 12%], while Australian beef enters at zero duty” due to the trade deal we have with Canberra, she points out.

Given the costs of this tariff, plus the investment required for the non-hormone-treated cattle program, in addition to the obvious non-tariff barrier of a ban on hormone-treated beef, the US is at a distinct disadvantage, Borror says.

“Also problematic is the need for a health certificate to transit from Rotterdam to the UK and the difficulties in getting that signature from the Dutch health authority,” she adds.

And UK imports of US beef are tiny. Year-to-date [to 18 March] HMRC data shows US beef makes up just 0.05% of UK import volumes, with Ireland the biggest exporter to the UK at 75.8%. Australia’s import share is 3.2%.

The UK meat sector’s position

Unsurprisingly, UK producers have no interest in seeing what they describe as imports produced to standards illegal in the UK undercutting British beef.

The NFU is urging the government to “stand up for UK agriculture” in any trade negotiations, citing how farmers had been “let down” by the Conservatives’ trade deals with Australia and New Zealand.

“It’s extremely concerning to see reports the UK government is trying to avoid US tariffs by seeking an urgent trade deal,” said NFU president Tom Bradshaw in March.

“While we do not want to see tariffs on UK agri-food going into the US – our second largest export market beyond the EU – it means our negotiators are on the back foot from the get-go and makes a balanced negotiation incredibly difficult,” he added.

“Absolutely no one wants to see hormone-treated beef, or pork or chicken treated with anti-microbial washes sold on our market,” Bradshaw insisted.

“Those ways of production were banned in the 80s and 90s for a reason. They don’t reflect our values and the farm to fork approach we are proud of in the UK, something we know the British people care deeply about.”

Any UK access to this meat “produced to lower standards” as part of any trade negotiations “would only serve to undercut British farmers and act as one of several disincentives for them to produce British beef to our own higher standards”, says British Meat Processors Association CEO Nick Allen.

But a senior UK meat sector source suggests “quite simply, there’s actually nothing wrong with hormone-treated beef, and given how it can be produced at a faster rate, it could actually be better for the environment due to the reduction in emissions”.

Will the UK compromise?

As for Defra’s position, it says the UK is “open to discussions” about a US trade deal, “but we will only ever sign trade agreements which align with the UK’s interests and uphold our high food standards”.

“Hormone-treated beef is, and will remain, illegal in the UK,” it insists, echoing a series of recent proclamations by PM Keir Starmer and environment secretary Steve Reed.

But given the UK had initially been handed a lower tariff than the EU, “it’s clear the US wants a trade deal”, according to the Association of Independent Meat Suppliers’ head of communications Tony Goodger.

And that means some kind of compromise by the UK is inevitable, Goodger concedes.

However, it is not just trading relations with the US that are at stake if the UK accepts hormone-treated beef. “We don’t want to inflame tensions with the US, but if we accept hormone-treated beef, that could also jeopardise trade with our biggest partner, the EU,” notes another senior UK meat source.

So could there be a compromise position?

Goodger suggests there could: “There is no reason why the Americans can’t produce non-hormone-treated beef (or non-chlorinated chicken) for the UK market.”

“They could do it in a similar way to how the Danes had UK production standards in order to attract British supermarkets. The Americans could do the same.”

The USCA makes a similar argument, saying an increasing volume of cattle is now “finished without implants, due to its inhibiting role on marbling deposition and final quality grade”.

Goodger also suggests US beef wouldn’t just be limited to foodservice either.

“It would have to be properly labelled, but I can see it coming into retailers, at someone like Asda or Farmfoods, which have looser sourcing requirements for meat and poultry,” he says.

“Ultimately, we’re not self-sufficient in beef, so this is where economics will come in and it could potentially compete with Brazil, Poland or Australia as ‘trading beef’.

“We can’t take just a binary position on this any more,” he adds.

Events this week have shown the situation to be dynamic and changeable, and Trump’s mercurial nature makes forecasting what he might demand – never mind how the UK might react – a challenge.

With his historic second state visit due later this year, the UK meat sector should expect more pressure, and more of the unexpected.