(This was originally posted on dKos on 12/2. I am cross posting here at the request of members of the Booman community)
Throughout the course of our days, we consume all manner of foods and beverages. Some are more aware and concerned about their diets, and therefore more careful. I often find myself running to the vending machines in my office to grab a snack, a soda, etc. This got me to thinking about the things that I swallow without a second thought, and the possible effects that they may be having on my health.
This is what lead me to what I write today. Over the next few weeks, I will be looking over the labels of foods, searching for those ingredients that seem out of place and trying to find out more. I will share what I find – mostly through your usual internet search engines. Hopefully, the response will be such that a concrete idea of the health hazards and possible benefits of these ingredients will become available.
First up is something that I heard whispers of some years ago, something that caught my attention and required a deeper look.
Join me on the flip as I take a look at recombinant bovine growth hormone – rBGH
OK, first things first. I am aware that rBGH is not technically an “ingredient” in our foods, but based on what I know, products derived from the use of this hormone will contain rBGH – at levels that may have an impact on our bodies.
- WHAT IS rBGH?
Per wikipedia, rBGH is a genetically engineered hormone used to increase milk production in dairy cows – also known as rbST (Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin). But how widely used is rBGH, and where did it come from? Well, the wikipedia has more:
Monsanto developed a recombinant version of bST (rbST), which goes by the brand name Posilac®. Injected into dairy cattle, the product can increase milk production from 10% up to 40%. In November 1993, the product was approved for use in the U.S. by the FDA, and its use began in February 1994. The product is now sold in all 50 states. According to Monsanto, approximately one third of dairy cattle in the U.S. are injected with Posilac; approximately 13,000 dairy producers use the product. It is now the top selling dairy cattle pharmaceutical product in the U.S. The FDA does not require special labels for products produced from cows given rbST.
Sounds good so far, right? I mean, we could always use more milk, I guess. Although, I never heard of any shortage that would really require increasing production so dramatically. But, I digress…
So, now we know that dairy farmers in all 50 states use rBGH, so it must be good, right? Well, what about the rest of the world? I wonder what they think…
While it is used in the United States, it is banned in Canada, the EU, Australia, and New Zealand.
Hmmm….our northern neighbors, the whole of Europe and the land down under must know something we don’t, right?
Well, let’s take a look at rBGH and its impact to find out more….
- WHAT ARE SOME POSSIBLE rBGH HAZARDS?
From organiccomnsumers.org and their 1994 rBGH Consumer Warning:
Starting February 3, 1994, milk, cheese, butter, ice cream, yogurt, beef and infant formula sold and consumed throughout the United States will be laced with genetically engineered recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) – also known as “Bovine Somatotropin” or BST. Recently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of rBGH in dairy cows without long-term testing of the hormone’s health effects on consumers.
The FDA has also refused to require labeling of milk and other dairy products derived from use of the genetically engineered hormone, even though more than 90% of consumers favor labeling of rBGH products so they can avoid buying them.
Wait, this stuff is in baby formula? Well, I would imagine that the FDA really made sure that it was safe prior to allowing it to reach the market of course (more on that later)….
The Food and Drug Administraition (FDA) admits that the use of rBGH in cows may lead to increased amounts of pus and bacteria in milk.
Equally disturbing, the powerful antibiotics and other drugs used to fight increased disease in rBGH-injected cows may lead to greater antibiotic and chemical contamination of milk and dangerous resistance to antibiotics in the human population.
The FDA has released studies showing that milk from rBGH-treated cows could have more saturated fat and less protein that regular milk.
Both the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) and the Consumer’s Union, publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, have warned of the potential hazards to human health caused by consuming products derived from rBGH-treated cows.
Well, that is disturbing. I don’t know about you – the reader – but, I prefer my milk to be as pus free as possible. But, what could the possible long term effects be? Well, to answer that, I think we must first look at how rBGH miraculously makes cows produce more milk.
Well, let’s take a look at this, from the Vermont Public Interest Group (VPIG):
When a genetically-engineered version of BGH is injected into a cow, (called rBGH) the immediate effect is to release an unnaturally large amount of a second powerful growth hormone — IGF-1 (short for insulin-like growth factor-1). It is this second hormone, IGF-1, which directly stimulates milk production.
The cow’s body is now overstimulated to produce 10 to 15% more milk. Instead of 16,800 pounds per year, she now produces over 19,000 pounds.
The Monsanto Corporation manufactures recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) by removing the section of bovine DNA which controls the production of natural BST and combining it with the DNA of the e.Coli bacterium. Large quantities of BST-laced e.Coli are grown in vats and the result – rBGH – is sold to dairy farmers by the dose.
Cows make more milk because they make more IGF-1. So, with the process of pasteurization, the IGF-1 should be removed from our milk and dairy, right?
Well, apparently, no, it is not…more from VPIG:
A number of studies have shown cows treated with rBGH produce milk with levels of IGF-1 two to ten times as high as normal cow’s milk. IGF-1 is also found in humans; human IGF-1 and bovine
IGF-1 are chemically identical, which means milk from rBGH-treated cows contains an increased level of a growth factor which is biologically active in humans.
While humans naturally produce IGF-1, that IGF-1 breaks down quickly in our bodies. IGF-1 in milk, however, does not break down quickly because that reaction may be inhibited by the presence of casein (a primary milk protein). In addition, IGF-1 found in treated milk is much more potent than that found in regular milk because it is less firmly bound to its accompanying proteins.
Well, that doesn’t sound good at all. I wonder, what does an increased level of IGF-1 mean to those who drink rBGH effected milk?
Well, VPIG has more:
A European review of the potential human health effects of rBGH concluded that evidence supports an association between IGF-1 and breast and prostate cancer. The report said:
“the relative risk of breast cancer increases with the amount of dairy products consumed…”
These concerns are particularly acute when applied to children. Children drink more milk than adults, and their exposure is higher because they have less body mass with which to process contaminants in milk.
Because their bodies, especially their reproductive and immune systems, are still developing, premature growth stimulation is a real concern with sustained intakes of high levels of IGF-1.
Ok, now we know what IGF-1 does to our bodies, but why? Well, this article found on Mercola.com has some points of interest:
Some of the potential mechanisms of the way in which IGF-1 increases cancer risk are as follows:
IGF-1 could be a surrogate for the activity of sex steroid hormones, which in turn influence the risk of cancer.
IGF-1 may increase cell turnover and the susceptibility of cells to malignant transformation both directly and by modulating the effects of sex steroids.
IGF-1 might increase the risk of cancer by preventing the programmed death of cells that have been transformed, thus interrupting an important process, which retards the development of cancer.
So, now we see, rBGH and, conversely, IGF-1 are pretty clearly not something we would want to put into our bodies. But, this begs the question:
- HOW DID rBGH MEET WITH FDA APPROVAL?
Let’s go back to the good folks at VPIG for a quick look at this one:
There are many questions about the approval process for rBGH in the U.S. Two of the most significant include:
The Food and Drug Administration official who signed the rBGH approval into law in 1994 is Michael Taylor. Prior to his employment by FDA, he worked for a law firm which represented rBGH to the FDA on behalf of Monsanto, engineers of rBGH. Since approving rBGH, he has returned to work for Monsanto.
Also, the FDA employee (Margaret Miller) who initially signed off on the human safety issue and was involved in virtually every major decision about rBGH – including whether a residue test was needed (which would have led to labeling) – was a former Monsanto rBGH researcher.
Well, shit…who saw that one coming, huh?
So, in conclusion, what we have seen is: a product – not determined to be safe for human consumption – placed on the market to solve a non-existent problem – there is not now, nor was there a milk production shortage in the US; a product that may lead to increased cancer rates, early onset puberty in children and a myriad of other health concerns; a product that met with FDA approval due to a corrupted system based more on financial gain than the public’s safety.
One final thought: take a quick look next time you grab that gallon of milk from your fridge, or while you peruse the dairy aisle at your local supermarket. Let me know if you notice something strange. That gallon of milk will expire in a few days per the stamp, right? Why do I recall milk lasting much longer when I was younger? It couldn’t possibly just be me right? Well, one glance at the carton of organic milk in the dairy case will show you why: rBGH tainted milk goes bad faster than non-rBGH infected milk, thus creating a need for the consumer to purchase milk more frequently. Thus creating a self fulfilling prophecy of milk supply and demand…
Please check out the links below for more info on rBGH and its impact:
Milk and the Cancer Connection
Peace,
Darrell
will focus on the additive high fructose corn syrup and will hopefully be ready by next Friday.
This is a very good diary on an issue of literally vital importance. I’m really looking forward to the next installments.
Casein is, if memory serves, one of the things in milk that I’m allergic to.
Always knew that stuff was nasty.
More seriously, the cattle industry in the US is a very nasty beast. Read up on some of the investigations into the spread of BSE that they’ve squelched. You’ll never look at that hamburger the same way again.
(Interestingly, I recall reading of some research a couple years ago, around the time of Canada’s BSE scare, saying that BSE appeared to be environmentally triggered, rather than a conventional disease. Triggered by large quantities of certain metals, if memory serves, which is why it and the sheep equivalent consistently reoccur in the same pastures. Anyone know what happened to that?)
As a voracious milk-drinker, I was happy to see that Canada was on the no side of this story. But I wanted to be sure, so I did some checking.
I found the original press release when Health Canada made the decision to reject bovine growth hormone, Health Canada rejects bovine growth hormone in Canada. What I found most interesting about the decision, was they rejected it on the grounds that it was harmful to the animals, the cows! Comprehensive reviews were submitted to the panel by both veterinarian (for animal impact) and population health (for human impact) epidemiologists. While the human impact was found insignificant (possibly d/t lack of hard data?), the veterinarian panel identified a number of concerns in using growth hormone. In the end, Health Canada decided,
Also, I’d be interested to know what data the European group was using for their findings for the association (mentioned by VPIG). I couldn’t find it listed on the site. My thoughts are since they (EU) do not allow the use of growth hormone, any hard data would come from US. Otherwise, they used some sort of risk assessment.
I also read somewhere that any milk ‘products’ imported to Canada must be free of rBGH. And the latest info from Health Canada, Veterinary Drugs Directorate — Stakeholder Committee Meeting May 4-5, 2005 (link), states:
In any case, you’ve set me off on an interesting path wtp. Thank you again for posting. And I look forward to your next piece.
The Organic Consumers Association reproduces the findings of the Scientific Committee of European Union on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health Outcome from 1999 (link).
Excerpt:
Thanks Dvx for the link. That’s what I had thought… risk assessment studies, with any observable studies done w/ cases having limited exposure to rBGH.
A related concern: Children are maturing sexually at a younger age. In part this is a product of increased protein in North American diets since WWII. However, there has been another uptick in the last 10 years. Menarche (when girls’ have their first periods), is occurring earlier – I know of children as young as 2nd grade (age 7) who have begun having periods. Needless to say, 7 year olds are not equipped cognitively nor emotionally to be handling the hormonal changes that are set off by the start of puberty!
Although this age change is sometimes referred to as a “secular decrease” – meaning we don’t know what causes it – some clinicians believe that increased hormones in food play a role in this.
I know that my parents’ solution to practically every health complaint is “eat more protein”. Everything I’ve read indicates the opposite. Too much protein isn’t exactly good for you, and you shouldn’t have significant amounts for more than one meal a day.
Then again, what I’ve read also seems to indicate that what’s socially considered to be a “normal diet” and what’s considered to be “normal food” was pretty badly screwed up by the industrial revolution and the Great Depression.
Yes, that plus the really low amount of exercise that we get now compared to people who did not work in industrial jobs.
I have a cookbook from WWII era. The substitutions are great for folks who were on sugar rationing (and other kinds, too.) But the weight loss section is a stitch! If we ate that much food today, we would pack it on – although we’d eat a lot healthier in some ways with many more vegetables! I think the writers assumed that most of the readers were living on farms and doing a lot of hard labor every day.
Ralgro used to be popular with beef producers here in ND. I do not know how prevalent it is now.
We used to wonder whether that one had an influence on the age of puberty, besides other potential issues.
for a report on potential risks to human health from hormones this pdf looks very interesting.
Looks like lots of good links on a google of; ralgro human health
You are what you eat.
And its necessary corollary.
You eat what you are.
As you evolve, you learn about this stuff.
Believe it.
And as you learn about this stuff…you evolve.
‘Round and ’round and ’round she goes,
Where she stops, cleans up your nose.
Really.
Cleans up your whole system, including your mind and emotions.
Eat as organically as you possibly can.
It’s a dirty world.
Stay clean.
You be bettah off.
AG
Thanks for posting this.
For a fairly long time, I have been thinking of Monsanto as one of the world’s most criminal companies, and I am surprised at how little mainstream coverage their depredations get.
Their attempts to force genetically modified foodstuffs all over the world, their false advertising, their flawed research that has been challenged in Europe and most of third world, but not in the US, their draconian measures to silence opposition, really, the list of their crimes is unending.
Agreed.
Monsanto has sued quite a few, I believe, small organic farms here in NH and VT, because the organic farms’ had been cross-pollinated with Monsanto seed and they had not then properly paid to use it. It is sick. These small farms trying to practice sustainable agriculture and produce both local and organic foods, and they are being drawn into lenghty court battles, of which they have not the resources for, and consequently shut down by this corporate devil spawn. It really makes me ill.
Sorry I have no specific details or links, I’m narrative that way…
The same thing happened up here in Canada. When you’ve got patented genes designed to do exactly this released into the wild…
And the courts still back the corporations, even when it’s obvious the small farmers did nothing except be on the wrong side of the wind… It boggles my mind. Actually, it infuriates me.
And Monsanto is doing this all over the world!!
They have tried to market genetically modified seeds for rice, cotton, wheat etc. These seeds are spliced with what is known as the Terminator gene since it removes the germination charateristics, rendering the seeds infertile. Which means that if you buy and sow these seeds you cannot save some that you’ve harvested to use for sowing next year, you HAVE to buy new seeds every year.
And the problem is not just limited to those farmers who got conned into buying these seeds but also others since the pollen from the crops carrying the Terminator gene infects the fields of farmers who have rejected this technology.
Like Shermanesque, i am narrative that way too….:-))
That’s right! Every year, you have to buy new seeds. And if you reject the ‘technology’, sucks to be you. Arghhh!!
Ohhh, relevant link from the orange site Linky
I’m feeling slightly vindicated here, forgive me. 🙂
Thanks for the link. It is some good news, at least:
“Forty-nine activists, including Paris Deputy Mayor Yves Contassot were acquitted of criminal charges in relation to the destruction of GM Maize fields in France in two separate incidents.
The defense argued that Monsanto’s activities were a ‘clear and present danger’ to the environment.”
You know there have been quite a few such victories all over, yet the company manages to roll on.
Imagine the possibility of a genetically modified ‘agent’ being ingested and then mutating into a parasite that produces some of the most bizarre symptoms conceivable. What doctor would take seriously the claims of colored fibers emenating from the skin? Would they look at the possibility of larvae or nematodes crawling under the skin or trying to emerge from open sores?
As the sufferer is at wit’s end in gathering seemingly insignificant evidence, their pain is complicated by the diagnosis of a delusional parasitosis.
The line has been crossed and it could very well have been Monsanto.