BREAST CANCER, rBGH AND MILK

[Orwellian_Ghost]

BREAST CANCER, rBGH AND MILK

A study of U.S. women published May 9 in the LANCET links
insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) with breast cancer.<1,2>
Earlier this year a study linked IGF-1 to prostate cancer.<3>
(See REHW #593.) Prostate and breast cancers are major killers
of men and women in the U.S. and in other industrialized
countries. IGF-1 levels are now being artificially increased in
much of the cows' milk being sold throughout the U.S. These new
cancer studies raise serious questions about the wisdom of
allowing IGF-1 levels to be raised in milk.

The latest study<1> found a 7-fold increased risk of breast
cancer among pre-menopausal women younger than age 51 with the
highest levels of IGF-1 in their blood. The prostate cancer study
published in SCIENCE in January, 1998, found a 4-fold increase in
risk of prostate cancer among men with the highest levels of
IGF-1 in their blood.<3> Thus IGF-1 in blood is associated with
larger relative risks for common cancers than any other factor
yet discovered.<2>

It is not clear from these studies whether IGF-1 causes these
cancers, or whether elevated IGF-1 accompanies some other factor
that causes these cancers. At the very least, researchers are
hoping that measurements of IGF-1 will identify individuals at
high risk of getting these cancers, so that surveillance might be
increased.<2> (However, it would be common practice in the U.S.
for people under such surveillance to find their health insurance
canceled, which tends to discourage participation in surveillance
programs.)

IGF-1 is a powerful naturally-occurring growth hormone found in
the blood of humans. Dairy cows injected with
genetically-engineered bovine growth hormone (rBGH) give milk
containing elevated levels of IGF-1, and the IGF-1 in milk can
pass into the blood stream of milk consumers. Cows' IGF-1 is
chemically identical to that in humans. Ingested IGF-1 would
ordinarily be broken down in the stomach, but the presence of
casein in milk prevents such breakdown.<4,5,6,7,8> (See REHW
#454.) Thus these latest cancer findings raise important public
health questions about the safety of milk from cows treated with
bovine growth hormone (rBGH).

rBGH is injected into cows to extend by several weeks their
period of lactation, and thus to force them to produce more milk.
rBGH is not needed in any way because U.S. dairy cows already
produce such an excess of milk that the U.S. government spends
more than $200 million each year purchasing surplus milk, a
subsidy to the milk industry. (See REHW #381, #384.) Because rBGH
injections can cause numerous ill effects in cows, veterinarians
in Germany have refused to administer rBGH to cows on grounds
that it violates their professional code of ethics, which forbids
intentional harm to animals. (See REHW #483.) U.S. veterinarians
have not taken a similar stand.



http://www.purefood.org/rBGH/rach598.htm

[Mari333]

1. common sense dictates that if you drink or eat something full of hormones

or antibiotics it will reek havoc on your body.
Im not going to tell people what to drink or eat, thats not my place, but I dumped meat and dairy products a long time ago because I dont trust the crap they put into that shit.

[paulsby]

2. there is a significant distinction between meat and milk

in this regards. i willingly eat meat from cows treated with hormones. because i know scientifically, that there is ZERO danger it is bioavailable and present in the meat. i am referring to trenbolone, progesterone, and estradiol, all substances that are injected into the flesh of a cows ear via pellets. milk, otoh, is an entirely different subject. there are bioavailable residues in milk from bovine growth hormone, etc. that can have negative effects. imo, these adulterants are significantly dangerous to the extent they should be banned from use in milk cows. but as for cows used for meat, it's not an issue.

[Mari333]

5. not enough study done on this yet

Children, pregnant women and the unborn are thought to be most susceptible to these negative health effects. Hormone residues in beef have been implicated in the early onset of puberty in girls, which could put them at greater risk of developing breast and other forms of cancer. The European Union’s Committee reported that as of 1999, no comprehensive studies had been conducted to determine whether hormone residues in meat can be cancer-causing.v

Scientists are also concerned about the environmental impacts of hormone residues in cow manure. Growth promoting hormones not only remain in the meat we consume, but they also pass through the cattle and are excreted in their manure. When manure from factory farms enters the surrounding environment, these hormones can contaminate surface and groundwater. Aquatic ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to hormone residues. Recent studies have demonstrated that exposure to hormones has a substantial effect on the gender and reproductive capacity of fish, throwing off the natural cycle.vi







http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/hormones/

until there is, Im avoiding them.

[paulsby]

6. i have no problem with that

one of the most profound freedoms we have, is the freedom to choose what we stuff down our throats. we are what we eat, after all. i'm saying my scientific analysis says there is zero danger. i don't care what others do. if you choose hormone free beef, more power to you. i'll let the market work that out. i am assuming that, ceteris paribus, hormone free beef is more expensive.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

11. The free market?

Bwahahahaha. Now back to reality.

Here's how it works:

Monsanto is clearly aware of the Clinton Administration's enthusiasm for genetically-engineered foods to boost the economy. An internal company memo<7> dated Sept. 21, 1993, suggests that, to persuade the Administration to allow rBGH onto the market, a Monsanto lobbyist should "Let Secretary Espy know that companies like Monsanto will likely pull out of the agriculture biotech area if the Administration will not stand up to persons like Senator Feingold ." Espy is now solidly on board promoting rBGH.

FDA Commissioner Kessler has also proven himself to be a loyal soldier in the consumer wars. He has consistently opposed giving consumers a choice by labeling milk. He says things such as, "The public can be confident that milk and meat from BST-treated cows is safe to consume." (BST is Monsanto's name for rBGH.) And, "There is virtually no difference in milk from treated and untreated cows."<10>

Unfortunately, a considerable body of scientific evidence from the U.S., England and Europe indicates that Commissioner Kessler is simply not telling the whole truth. Substantial evidence indicates that milk from rBGH-treated cows is very likely to feature:

* more pus from infected cows' udders;

* more antibiotics given to cows to treat those infections;

* an "off" taste and shortened shelf life, because of the pus;

* perhaps higher fat content and lower protein content;

* more of a tumor-promoting chemical called IGF-I, which has been implicated in cancers of the colon, smooth muscle, and breast.

In return for accepting increased pus, more antibiotics, and a tumor-promoting chemical in their glass of milk, what benefits will consumer's get?

None at all. Zero. Even FDA says there are no consumer benefits. In fact, because the U.S. already produces a surplus of milk, which is purchased by Uncle Sam, increasing milk production with rBGH will COST the taxpayer an additional $200 million or more each year, estimates Consumers Union. That's family money pumped into some chemical company's pocket. That's who benefits.

http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/REHW486.html

[paulsby]

12. do you have reading comprehension iisues?

i already said i think the use of bov growth hormone in dairy cows should be banned.

[abumbyanyothername]

14. I love this part . . .

Increasing milk production with rBGH will COST the taxpayer an addition $200 million or more each year . . . .

Calls to mind the guy in Food, Inc. (by the way, I forget his name, but he is a nut case Libertarian who relishes in shooting animals found on his farm, wild or domestic) who owns and runs Polyface Farms . . . "We are doing a better and better job of hitting the bullseye on the wrong targets."

[DevonRex]

3. Great information there. Thank you very much. K&R.

[Maru Kitteh]

4. My MIL drank a LOT of whole milk for decades. Breast cancer 2001.

Acutally, she was in the hospital with her mastectomy on Sept. 11.

She also smoked.
She was also obese.

It's like she had a neon welcome mat laid out for cancer and by gosh, cancer did oblige.

At least she's quit smoking and lost some weight - and it only cost her one whole breast.

[abumbyanyothername]

15. My amateur theory on cancer

Not necessarily caused by any one substance. Just the body's final, last gasp, response to a generalized overloading with toxins.

[Maru Kitteh]

26. I'd say most of the time that's probably quite correct.

[lindisfarne]

7. EU bans it. We should too. Bad for us, bad for the cows. There's a glut of milk & the

gov't has long paid farmers to NOT produce milk. So why allow hormones to increase production, which creates problems for cows & people?

[flvegan]

8. Milk is crap anyway.

Vegan or not, nutritionally, I wouldn't put that crap in my body. I also refuse to support the veal industry, damned personal ethics.

But, to each his/her own.

[conscious evolution]

9. A friend who is a doctor

of Pharmacy is convinced that it is also causing young girls to develope at younger ages.
She thinks studies will show a link.

[paulsby]

10. i think it's more influenced by

environmental estrogens, but i think igf in milk is contributing

[abumbyanyothername]

13. Hormones or not, bovine milk is unfit for human consumption.

This fact went unnoticed for millenia when societies were too poor to afford milk and milk products 3 to 6 times a day (or more).

Look at what our closest cousins, chimps and other primates eat.

IMO. Choose for yourself.

[NightWatcher]

17. milk is for newborns to be ingested direct from their mum, not for cross-specis ingestion

the idea of drinking another animal's milk is just nasty

[Odin2005]

19. You obviously never heard of natural selection and the evolution of lactose tolerance.

Milk has been an important part of Northern European and Central Asian cultures for millennial.

[emilyg]

16. k/r

[no_hypocrisy]

18. My naturopath has strongly recommended that I cease consumption of all bovine dairy products.

The results of my comprehensive screening showed levels very much above normal range for estrogen, progesterone, testosterone, etc. and that my body can't accept bovine dairy products. It encourages anto-immune disease and I already have evidence of thyroid antibodies.

I'm OK with goats milk, rice milk, soy milk, almond milk, sheeps milk.

I'm bookmarking this post.

[Odin2005]

20. Snake Oil salesmen suggest that you follow their BS, too.

[no_hypocrisy]

23. My post illustrates I have elevated levels of

hormones which the original post has delineated as harmful and which are found in bovine dairy products. Why would abstention from these items and given recommendations be called "snake oil"? I haven't been told to substitute anything that is unnatural; these products are accepted as healthy.

[Odin2005]

24. I have no problem with that, it's the "naturopath" I have the problem with.

[NashVegas]

21. I've Been Drinking rBGH-Free, Organic Since I Left Vermont in 1994

You know Vermont, right? The state Monsanto sued because VT wanted to require labeling on r-BST milk?

[stray cat]

22. Avoid water as well - it could always be contaminated with something

chemicals or disease causing bugs... And have you seen the e-coli -in vegetables and almost any type of food. No eating or drinking and you will be fine.

[GReedDiamond]

25. Thanks for your off-topic and irrelevant reply...

...there is a big difference between poor handling of food products which may result in such things as e-coli infections in humans, or water pollution issues (usually due to some sort of corporate activity/malfeasance) resulting in contamination of local water supplies, versus that of bio-engineered/mutated/disease causing/fucked up corporate shit food products being introduced into the mass market, which are directly ingested into the bodies of their consumers, who believe that such things are perfectly "safe."

But, in any case, enjoy your big cold and frothy glass o' rGBH milk! Bon apetit!

Edited for spelling!