Imagine sinking your teeth into a bone-in steak from hormone-treated beef or enjoying a glass of rBGH-treated milk. Steak and milk may not taste any different from the same unprocessed products, but the hormones they contain could have a direct and indirect impact on your health. The hormones that U.S. farmers feed to livestock are dangerous and have negative effects on people and the environment. Although America allows the use of hormones in cattle, the fact that Europe has banned the use of hormones raises many questions about the possible health risks these hormones could pose to consumers. America is one of the world's largest producers of beef. According to Raloff (2002), approximately 36 million beef cattle are raised in America each year and approximately two-thirds are treated with hormones (para. 2). Farmers use these hormones to increase the growth rate of their livestock. By increasing the growth rate of livestock, farmers can produce more beef and, while still earning more, can sell it at an affordable price to consumers. The hormones that can be administered to beef and dairy cattle may already be produced, in small quantities, naturally in their own bodies or synthetically. According to the U.S. Department of Food and Drug Administration (2002), “the accepted natural hormones that can be administered to beef and dairy cattle are estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone, and the accepted synthetic hormones are zeranol, trenbolone acetate, and melengestrol acetate. . None of the hormones listed above are acceptable in the European food and milk production industries. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the American government... middle of paper... yi cattle are responsible for the greatest amount of manure production among farm animals (see Table 1) (par. ). In a study conducted by Louis J. Guillette Jr. of the University of Florida and Ana M. Soto of Tufts University School of A Boston, the hormonal activity of water from sites located both upstream and downstream of ranches in Nebraska was tested by adding water samples to cells that “react in various ways to hormonal steroids” (Raloff, 2002, para 17-18). The study (as cited in Raloff) found that: Concentrations of estrogenic pollutants at two of the downstream sites were sometimes nearly double those at the upstream site. And water from all three downstream sites was significantly more androgenic than samples collected upstream. A downstream sample showed an androgenicity almost four times higher than that of the upstream water (par. 19).