American Milk: Colon and Breast Cancer Risks

American dairy farmers use rBGH hormone to increase milk production

rBGH increases cancer risk of milk
Citizen advocacy groups escalate efforts against rBGH
Study Warns of Colon and Breast Cancer Risks from rBGH Milk

January 23, 1996, Washington, DC - The Cancer Prevention Coalition and Food & Water, released a study today reporting that milk from cows injected with recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) increases risks of breast and colon cancers in humans. This study is published in the January issue of the International Journal of Health Services, a peer-reviewed, leading international public health journal.

The study summarizes evidence that rBGH increases levels of insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) in milk. IGF-1 is a powerful stimulator and regulator of cell-growth and division in humans and cows. The study concludes that increased IGF-1 levels are risk factors for breast and colon cancer.

rBGH poses an even greater risk to human health than ever considered," warned Samuel Epstein M.D., Professor of Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, author of the new report. "The FDA and Monsanto have a lot to answer for. Given the cancer risks, and other health concerns, why is rBGH milk still on the market?"

Since 1986, independent scientists have expressed concern about the lack of research on the potential health effects of IGF-1 in rBGH milk. More recently, the Council of Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association admitted that: "Further studies will be required to determine whether the ingestion of higher than normal concentrations of bovine IGF-1 is safe."

Increased IGF-1 levels in rBGH milk exert their cancer promoting effects directly on cells lining the colon, and on breast cells, following absorption into the blood.

" Monsanto 's claims that rBGH is perfectly safe have been proven dead wrong today. This study further validates the health concerns of millions of consumers about this controversial product," said Michael Colby, Executive Director of Food and Water. "Only Monsanto is benefiting from this drug. It's time for dairy companies to side with consumers by adopting a policy that they will not allow rBGH, under any circumstances, to be used by their farmers."

Epstein concluded, "The entire nation is currently being subjected to a large-scale adulteration of an age-old dietary staple by a poorly characterized and unlabeled biotechnology product which is very different than natural milk."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statement by the Cancer Prevention Coalition on IGF-1 and Breast and Colon Cancer

The FDA has ignored the wide range of converging evidence that associates increased consumption of insulin growth factor-i (IGF- 1), which increases in milk from rBGH treated cows, with a potential risk of breast and other types of cancer.

Published research shows that rBGH use on dairy cows induces a marked and sustained increase in levels of insulin-like growth factor-1, or IGF-1, in cow’s milk. This is admitted by FDA (Juskevich & Guyer, 1990), and more explicitly by others (Prosser 1988; Prosser 1989; Mepham, 1992). A recent admission by another manufacturer of rBGH (Eli Lilly & Co.) reports a ten fold increase in IGF-1 levels. Furthermore, there is suggestive evidence that IGF- 1 in rBGH milk is more bioactive than in non-hormonal milk (Mepham, 1992).

IGF-1 regulates cell growth, division and differentiation, particularly in children. Human and normal bovine IGF-1 are identical, they are largely bound in protein and thus probably less biologically active than unbound IGF1 in rBGH derived milk.

IGF-1 is not destroyed by pasteurization. In fact this process substantially increases IGF-1 levels in milk. (Juskevich and Guyer, 1990). Nor is IGF-1 destroyed by digestion. Moreover, FDA admits that IGF-1 is readily absorbed across the intestinal wall (Juskevich & Guyer, 1990); this was also previously admitted by Monsanto in 1987. Further confirmation is also provided by other authorities (e.g. Mepham, 1992). Additionally, recent research indicates that IGF-1 can be absorbed into the bloodstream where it can effect other hormones. (Donovan and Odle, 1994)

FDA and other industry sources have not published any detailed studies on the oral toxicity of IGF-1 Rather, they have consistently refused to make available their findings and raw data. A highly condensed summary of an IGF- 1 Monsanto short term test in mature rats was released by FDA (Juskevich & Guyer, 1990). The agency alleges that this study confirms IGF- 1's "lack of oral activity." At the outset it should be noted that the Monsanto test wascontracted out to Hazelton Laboratories, which has a two decade history of misrepresentation of scientific data. (Epstein, 1978). However, even the cited Monsanto/Hazelton data explicitly reveal statistically significant evidence of growth promoting effects. Feeding relatively low doses of IGF-1 to mature rats for only two weeks resulted in statistically significant and biologically highly significant systemic effects: increased body weight; increased liver weight; increased bone length; and decreased epiphyseal width. These results are confirmatory of prior theoretical predictions.

The FDA has failed to investigate the effects of long-term feeding of IGF- 1 and rBGH-milk on growth, or on more sensitive sub-cellular effects, in infant rats or infants of any other species.

Significantly, cows injected with rBGH show heavy localization of IGF-l in breast (udder) epithelial cells; this does not occur in untreated cows. (Furlanetto, et al, 1984; Gregor, et al, 1985; Campbell, et al, 1986.) IGF-1 induces rapid division and multiplication of normal human breast epithelial cells in tissue cultures. It is highly likely that IGF- 1 promotes transformation of normal breast epithelium to breast cancers. (Furlanetto, et al, 1984; Harris, et al, 1992, growth factors such as IGF-1 "are responsible at least in part for the evolution of normal breast epithelia to breast cancer...'). Moreover, IGF-1 maintains the malignancy of human breast cancer cells, including their invasiveness and ability to spread to distant organs. (Lippman, 1991, 1993). IGF-l has been similarly associated with colon cancer (Tricolo, et al, 1986).

The undifferentiated pre-natal and infant breast is particularly susceptible to hormonal influences. (Ekbom, et al. 1992) Such imprinting by IGF-1 may increase future breast cancer risks, and may also increase the sensitivity of the breast to subsequent unrelated risks such as mammography and the carcinogenic and estrogen-like effects of pesticide residues in food, particularly in pre-menopausal women. (Elwood, et al, 1993).

Concerns about increased levels of IGF- 1 in milk from cows treated with rBGH are not new. In 1990, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus panel on rBGH expressed concerns on adverse health effects of IGF-1 in rBGH milk, calling for further study on the treated milk's impacts, especially on infants. (NIH, 1991). In a 1989In a letter to the FDA, I warned that the effects of IGF-1 "could include premature growth stimulation in infants, [breast enlargement] in young children, and breast cancer in adult females." More recently, the Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association stated: "Further studies will be required to determine whether the ingestion of higher than normal concentrations of bovine insulin-like growth factor is safe for children, adolescents, and adults." (AMA, 1991). Instead of further study, the FDA allowed for uncontrolled, unlabeled sales of treated milk to unwitting consumers.

Given the potential health impacts of consumption of milk and other dairy products derived from rBGH-treated cows, all such products should at a minimum be labeled so that consumers are aware of what they are purchasing and consuming. More prudently, the FDA approval of rBGH should be withdrawn until the agency performs adequate long-term testing on the impacts of increased levels of IGF-1 in milk and other dairy products derived from rBGH-treated cows.

Source: http:/ / www. preventcancer. com……/ colon_cancer/ milk_colon. htm

Shen Yaozi said, "The sun bakes the earth, dissipating all things."

In April 1996, Howard Lyman, the author of this book, shocked society by revealing on the famous American talk show, The Oprah Winfrey Show, that factory farms were using animal products, including cows and euthanized cats and dogs, as the primary protein feed for cattle. Feeding cattle with animal products not only goes against their herbivorous nature but, more importantly, is a major transmission route for mad cow disease, significantly impacting public food safety. Lyman's outspokenness led to legal repercussions, and in June of the same year, he, along with Oprah Winfrey and her show's production company, were sued by Texas cattle ranchers for food disparagement. The case was decided in February 1998 in favor of Lyman and Winfrey, with no further appeals allowed to the Supreme Court. The book unfolds with the author humorously recounting these events.

The first chapter begins by recounting the shocking revelation on the TV show that cows were being fed to cows. After cattle were slaughtered, the parts unsuitable for human consumption, along with euthanized cats and dogs from shelters, and animals that died in car accidents or were euthanized at animal control centers, were all ground up and cooked together. The oily substances that floated to the top were refined and processed into cosmetics, soaps, candles, etc., while the remaining protein-rich parts were turned into a brown powder known as "concentrated protein." This concentrated protein, containing 25% animal feces, was then recycled into pet food and fed back to livestock. Additionally, recycled animal feces were also a major part of their diet, as selling animal feces back as feed was highly economical and convenient for farm operators.

In the United States, 9,000 people die annually from food poisoning, with 80% of these cases due to meat contamination. How many diseases are transmitted through cows eating contaminated or unhealthy animal-derived concentrated protein? More seriously, feeding ruminants to ruminants is considered the initial transmission route for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as mad cow disease. It is now widely believed that cows contracted BSE by eating sheep infected with scrapie, a spongiform brain disease in sheep. In the U.S., hundreds of thousands of cows die suddenly each year for unknown reasons, and since dead cows cannot be sent to slaughterhouses for steaks or hamburgers, they end up as the aforementioned protein feed. If even one of these cows had BSE, countless other cows and animals could become infected by consuming the diseased animal. Although feeding ruminants to ruminants was legislatively banned in 1997, this law, while better than nothing, is not an effective solution. Producers can still feed other animals like pigs and horses to cows, and we know that BSE can cross species barriers. Furthermore, cow blood is not banned under this law and can still be used as livestock feed, continuing to act as a direct transmission medium for BSE.

Currently, there is no cure for BSE, and the only diagnostic method is through the dissection of the patient's brain tissue. The disease is caused by a variant protein known as a prion, which, unlike viruses, lacks nucleic acids and thus cannot be destroyed by radiation. Given the extremely long incubation period of BSE, it remains unknown how many infected cows have entered the beef market before showing symptoms. However, it is certain that the confirmed cases worldwide represent only the tip of the iceberg.The characteristics of mad cow disease, combined with the feeding practices of modern farms, have created a serious threat to public health that has yet to be fully acknowledged. This book provides a detailed account of how mad cow disease was discovered in the UK and the British government's handling of the situation. The first case of mad cow disease was identified in the UK in 1986. To protect the interests of the cattle industry, the British government did everything possible to conceal the risk of the disease being transmitted to humans. To reassure the public that beef was still safe to eat, the UK Minister of Agriculture even fed his four-year-old daughter a hamburger on television. It wasn't until March 1996, when an unprecedented ten young Britons died from a mysterious new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD, a human form of spongiform encephalopathy), that the British government began to take the issue seriously and acknowledged the close link between this new variant of CJD and mad cow disease. The author repeatedly calls on the US government not to repeat the same mistakes. Mad cow disease is likely an impending disaster in the US, and every effort should be made to prevent its spread. This book provides facts that the general public has the right to know, helping people to think more objectively about the necessity and dangers of eating meat. It also serves as a warning to livestock farmers worldwide who use "modern" feeding methods.

Another issue that consumers should be aware of is the presence of carcinogens in meat products. The pesticide content in crops fed to cattle far exceeds that in crops consumed by humans. Since these carcinogens accumulate in animal fat, when these animals eat other animals, they are essentially consuming concentrated carcinogens. When humans then consume these animals, they inevitably ingest the highest concentrations of these carcinogens. Although the notorious DDT was banned 25 years ago, residual DDT in the soil can still enter food crops. A 1975 study found that 95% of the DDT we ingest comes from meat and dairy products. Therefore, avoiding animal products can help reduce exposure to most residual pesticides. The author cites a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which found that the pesticide levels in the breast milk of vegetarian mothers were only 1-2% of the national average. While many people diligently wash vegetables or choose organic produce to avoid pesticides, how many realize that the majority of the pesticides we ingest come from meat products?

Growth hormones are another issue that comes with eating meat. In Chapter 6, the author dedicates a section to discussing the impact of so-called "biotechnology" on cattle and those who consume beef. In 1993, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a synthetic bovine growth hormone called Posilac (rBGH - recombinant bovine growth hormone) for use. Dairy farmers use it to stimulate milk production in cows, but a 1985 experiment had already shown that rBGH is extremely harmful to the health of cows. Due to excessive milk production, the cows' stored energy and fat are depleted, and most cows become unable to conceive or collapse due to significant calcium loss from their bones. Unlike normal cows that typically give birth to one calf at a time, cows treated with rBGH that do manage to conceive often have twins or triplets, further straining the health of the mother cows. The manufacturer of Posilac kept the experimental results confidential within the farms where the experiments were conducted. When dairy farmers discovered the harm Posilac caused to their cows, they came up with a clever solution: feed the cows more high-protein animal feed to create super cows. As consumers, we are thus simultaneously facing the threats of mad cow disease and growth hormones.At the time of this book's publication, approximately 3% of dairy cows in the United States were being injected with rBGH, typically before they were sent to slaughterhouses, making their fertility or bone loss irrelevant to the profits of the industry. Antibiotics are another issue associated with rBGH. Cows injected with rBGH have a significantly higher incidence of mastitis, resulting in milk with a notably higher bacterial content than that from regular cows. Consequently, the industry heavily uses antibiotics to combat mastitis and reduce bacterial levels in milk. Current antibiotic regulations allow loopholes for the industry, with little chance of being caught, and even if caught, first-time offenders merely receive a reprimand letter without any official signature. A study in the northeastern states of the U.S. found that 63% of milk on the market contained measurable antibiotics, and a 1998 survey in Illinois showed that 58% of dairy farmers used unapproved drugs.

Additionally, Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1) is another concern linked to rBGH. Both the meat from rBGH-treated beef cattle and the milk from dairy cows contain significantly higher levels of IGF-1, which is not deactivated by pasteurization or digestion and accumulates in human blood. IGF-1 is currently suspected to be a potential carcinogen.

As the author points out, we naturally assume that the government takes care of all necessary food safety measures. However, this is not the case. Current laws and bureaucratic systems leave too many gaps for the industry to exploit, and the meat we consume daily contains many unknown substances. The author provides numerous examples of this in the book.

So, can we safely consume livestock raised in traditional organic ways? Compared to a vegetarian diet, animal products do provide some nutrients we need, but along with these, we also consume cholesterol, saturated fats, and animal proteins, which are culprits of modern diseases. The book presents detailed data (Chapter 2) linking meat consumption to cardiovascular diseases, stroke, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, osteoporosis, and some cancers. Vegetarians have a significantly lower incidence of these modern diseases than non-vegetarians. For example, vegetarians have one-third the heart disease rate of the general population, while strict vegans who avoid all dairy and egg products have only one-tenth the rate. Increasing data now confirms that a balanced vegetarian diet can be healthier than consuming animal products. The misconceptions that "a lack of animal protein leads to malnutrition" or "without dairy, the body lacks calcium," deeply ingrained in the public mind, are partly due to animal protein being historically seen as a food for the wealthy and the result of misleading propaganda by the beef and dairy industries.

Beyond health, the cattle farming industry causes large-scale ecological destruction. Overdevelopment of farms and arable land leads to deforestation and topsoil loss, soil desertification, reduced groundwater, and contributes to the greenhouse effect, with methane from cattle and nitrous oxide from fertilizers being significant contributors. Additionally, excessive pesticides are used in growing animal feed, as regulations for human food do not apply to animal feed. However, these issues can be mitigated by abandoning animal products. Moreover, global food shortages could be significantly alleviated. The reason is simple: producing beef through feed is highly inefficient, requiring about 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef. Currently, 70% to 80% of grain in the U.S. is used to feed livestock rather than humans. Reducing meat demand would allow our limited Earth resources to feed more people.Meat products are not only detrimental to health, but their production process also poisons the ecosystem and wastes resources. The destruction caused by eating meat has surpassed the scale of individual households and is no longer just a matter of personal choice that can be dismissed with "none of your business."

In his book, Lyman recounts his own experiences of becoming a farmer, then abandoning farming for politics, and eventually becoming a vegetarian (Chapters 3 and 4). Lyman had been involved in cattle farming for twenty years. His great-grandfather owned a family farm in Montana, which had been passed down to him as the fourth generation. He began working on the farm at the age of four, developing a deep, umbilical connection to the land. After taking over the farm, Lyman, who held a bachelor's degree in agriculture, applied his knowledge to expand the family business into a large farm spanning thousands of acres with thousands of cattle. He introduced modern farming techniques, heavily using chemical fertilizers and pesticides on the crops fed to the cattle, and sprayed large amounts of insecticides daily on the farm. These insecticides inevitably contaminated the cattle's food and water, eventually entering their bodies and being consumed by humans. Antibiotics were used even before the cattle fell ill, and they had to be constantly rotated to keep up with antibiotic resistance, including some that had already been banned. Farmers also stockpiled growth hormones that were no longer allowed to be sold, and despite legal prohibitions, they used these hormones on cattle two weeks before slaughter to increase profits. Through his personal experiences, the author describes the transformation of typical American farms over the past few decades and how ordinary farmers gradually became slaves and accomplices to chemical and pharmaceutical companies in pursuit of profit, giving readers an immersive understanding of the operations of modern chemical farms.

In 1989, he was bedridden with a spinal tumor. On the night before his surgery, he reflected on his past and realized that his beloved farm was no longer what it used to be. The heavy use of pesticides and fertilizers had turned the once fertile land into something resembling sand, and birds no longer nested in the farm's trees. Even when he returned home from work, the pesticides on his body were enough to kill the potted plants at home. Reflecting on the past and present, he understood that modern chemical agriculture was unsustainable and could not be passed on to future generations. He had to take responsibility for himself and reverse the damage he had done. After a miraculously successful surgery, he attempted to convert his farm to organic practices. Later, he ran for office with the slogan "clean air, water, and food," but was soon threatened by banks and forced to sell most of his farm. After losing the election, he went to Washington, D.C., to become a lobbyist for the National Farmers Union. During his tenure, he noticed the potential threat of mad cow disease to the United States and began investigating it.

Additionally, during his tenure, he promoted the establishment of some organic agricultural product standards. However, from the creation of legislation to its actual implementation, it takes time and considerable money, and no matter how much legislation is enacted to protect organic farming, organic farms continue to decline year by year. He thought of various problems, including ecological degradation, the reduction of rainforests, the fact that a billion people worldwide go hungry every day, while some overfed individuals use sixteen pounds of grain to feed cattle to obtain one pound of meat. He thought of many friends suffering from heart disease, the increasing number of cancer patients in society, and his own weight exceeding 350 pounds, cholesterol over 300, high blood pressure, and frequent nosebleeds. Suddenly, he realized that all of this was due to a mistake, a widely socially and culturally accepted mistake considered normal. This mistake is not only a slow suicide but also gradually destroying our mountains, rivers, and oceans. Yet, there is a simple solution to all of this; the answer to all problems lies at the edge of our forks and knives! He realized that change must start with grassroots consumers.Only by informing consumers and changing their dietary habits can we prevent the beef and dairy industries, backed by substantial funds (which come from the pockets of every consumer), from continuing to mislead the public with incorrect nutritional information and even manipulate policy-making. The author, having found answers to long-standing questions, decided to give up meat and become a strict vegetarian, avoiding even dairy and eggs.

The book is written in a straightforward and friendly manner, with humor and wit. As it is largely based on the author's personal experiences, it is highly persuasive and greatly aids in understanding the realities of modern farming. First published in 1998, the author, who once served as the president of the International Vegetarian Union and currently chairs Earthsave International, travels extensively to promote the benefits of vegetarianism and to warn about the dangers of modern agriculture to consumer health and the environment. The English title of the book, "Mad Cow Boy," is a pun, with "mad" also meaning angry. The author aims not only to describe the reckless practices of modern cowboys but also to express his concern and anger as an old cowboy about the situation.

As the author states, everyone who still consumes meat products has the right to know how cattle are raised on farms and what else they are consuming when they eat meat. They should also understand that enjoying meat daily means exploiting the food resources of a billion people suffering from hunger worldwide and contributing to environmental destruction. The book presents clear and simple facts on these points, making it a worthwhile read.

Source: http://www. lca. org. tw/ report/ b6. htm