|
What is rBST? |
Learn more about what "rBST
Free means" to You and Your Family
 |
What is recombinant
bovine somatotropin (rBST), also known as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH)?
Recombinant bovine growth hormone (also known as rBGH or rBST) is a genetically
engineered drug produced by the Monsanto
Corporation. It is injected into dairy cows to induce them to increase milk
production, typically by 5-15%. It's estimated that 15-20% of
the cows in the United States are injected with this hormone. It was approved by
the FDA in 1993. |
Why should we be
concerned about rBGH / rBST?
Increased cancer risk: When rBST is injected into a cow, it elevates levels of
another powerful growth hormone, IGF-1, which is
present in both cows and humans. IGF-1 is a necessary hormone, but in excessive
amounts, it has been linked in hundreds of studies
to an increase in breast, prostate, colon, lung and other cancers in humans.
Numerous scientific data suggest IGF-1 in milk survives
human digestion and enters the bloodstream in sufficient quantities to
potentially trigger increased cancer rates.
Antibiotic resistance: Cows given rBST experience statistically higher rates of
mastitis, a painful udder infection. It is treated with
antibiotics such as penicillin, amoxicillin and erythromycin, which are also
used to treat infections in people. Bacteria resistant to these
antibiotics end up in the milk, air, soil and water, resulting in increased
antibiotic resistance in humans, a major health problem.
Harm to cows: In addition to mastitis, rBST has been demonstrated to increase
the incidence of 15 different harmful effects to cows'
health, including birth disorders, increased pus in milk, hoof problems, heat
stress, diarrhea, and other gastrointestinal disturbances.
The Humane Society of the U.S., Humane Farming Association, Farm Sanctuary and
Animal Protection Institute all oppose the use of
rBST. |
Was there a milk shortage
in the U.S. that rBST was intended to alleviate?
Just the opposite - in the last 20 years, there have been several occasions when
hundreds of thousands of dairy cows were
slaughtered because there was too much milk on the market.
How profitable is rBST for dairy farmers?
Some dairy farmers say it's profitable, others say it isn't. Although farmers
see increased milk production from cows injected with
rBST, there are also increased expenses - the cost of the drug, increased feed
costs (since the cow's metabolism is revved up, it
must eat more), and often higher veterinary bills. Moreover, cows on rBST are
typically slaughtered after 2-3 lactation cycles due to
stress from the drug. Cows not on rBST often live and are productive 4, 6, 8, 10
or more years.
The main academic study on rBST profitability (William McBride et al, "The
Adoption and Impact of Bovine Somatotropin on U.S.
Dairy Farms," Review of Agricultural Economics, 2004) stated that "the average
impacts were not conclusive," finding some farms
that were profitable using rBST and some that were not. The drug was used more
by larger farms.
What are the two types of rBST / rBGH-free milk?
Organic is rBST / rBGH-free by definition and also requires that no pesticides
be used for feed and no antibiotics used. Conventional
rBST / rBGH-free doesn't allow the rBST but does allow use of pesticides and
antibiotics.
What about the price of rBST / rBGH-free milk compared to rBST milk?
Organic milk is non-rBGH by definition. Like most organic products, it will
typically cost more than conventional milk, whether it has
rBST or not.
Conventional non-rBGH milk varies from about the same price as rBST milk to
somewhat more. It is less expensive than organic.
Does rBST improve nutrition, taste, etc.?
No, there are no advantages to consumers.
With all these problems and no benefits to consumers, why did the FDA approve
rBST?
The FDA's decision to approve rBST was one of the most controversial it has ever
made. There was widespread criticism from
government leaders, farmers and scientists, including many inside the FDA, who
questioned Monsanto's influence and the objectivity
and integrity of the review process. There were many good reasons for concern:
Several individuals who had either worked directly for Monsanto or had close
ties were hired by the FDA and placed in decision-
making positions. One, Michael Taylor, had previously represented Monsanto as a
lawyer been a lawyer at a Washington, D.C. firm.
The FDA hired him as Deputy Commissioner for Policy from 1991-94, during which
time he oversaw the approval of rBST and
guidelines for labeling. He returned to work for Monsanto in 1998.
Margaret Miller worked for Monsanto from 1985 to 1989, developing rBST. The FDA
then hired her as Branch Chief of Hormones and
Pharmacological Agents where she was directly involved in the rBST approval
process.
Suzanne Sechen was a graduate student at Cornell working with a Monsanto-funded
scientist also developing rBST. The FDA hired
her as a Primary Reviewer Officer from 1988 to 1990.
None of this back-and-forth movement between government agencies and the
industry they are supposed to regulate, often referred
to as "The Revolving Door," is technically illegal. However, it is obvious that
Monsanto's corporate influence was a major factor in the
review process.
What was the backlash inside the FDA?
Several scientists who worked in the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine
reported undue corporate influence that compromised the
scientific integrity of the agency:
Alexander Apostolou, Director of Toxicology, said "Sound scientific procedures
for evaluating human food safety of veterinary drugs
have been disregarded." He was forced to quit the FDA.
Joseph Settapani, chemist in charge of quality control, described "a systematic
human food-safety breakdown at the Center for
Veterinary Medicine. Dissent is not tolerated if it could seriously threaten
industry profits." He was reprimanded, threatened with
dismissal and stripped of his duties as supervisor.
Richard Burroughs, a veterinarian who was a lead reviewer of rBST for nearly
five years, said officials "suppressed and manipulated
data" in safety tests. He was fired.
The situation became so serious that other FDA employees wrote a letter to
Congress asking for an investigation. When the General
Accounting Office (GAO) looked into the claims, it agreed that human food safety
risks covered by FDA guidelines had not been
addressed for rBST. Congressmen George Brown, David Obey and Bernard Sanders, in
a letter to the GAO comptroller general,
said: "The entire FDA review of rBGH seemingly has been characterized by
misinformation and questionable actions on the part of
both FDA and the Monsanto Company officials."
However, Congress took no further action and the hormone was approved.
What about other organizations?
The American Medical Association issued an opinion in 1990 saying rBST was safe,
based largely on evidence supplied from the
FDA. However, a year later, the AMA's Council on Scientific Affairs said:
"Further studies will be required to determine whether
ingestion of higher than normal concentrations of bovine IGF-1 is safe for
children, adolescents, and adults." Much research has been
done since 1991 (see references at the end of this website) documenting the
risks posed by increased levels of IGF-1 in promoting
cancer in humans.
The World Health Organization, as a body, has never said rBST was safe. The
Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) is
an advisory committee jointly administered by WHO and the UN Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO). Highly influenced by FDA
officials, it issued opinions in 1993 and 1998 saying rBST could be used without
appreciable health risk.
However, JECFA reports to the Codex Alimentarius the U.N.'s main food safety
body. Significantly, Codex considered rBST twice, in
1997 and 1999. Both times, it concluded there was NO consensus rBST was safe for
human health. It has not been brought up since.
Health Care Without Harm, a coalition of over 400 organizations in 52 nations
that advocates safe and healthy practices in hospitals,
has closely examined rBST and also rejects it. Its position statement "opposes
the use of recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone
(rBGH or rBST), a synthetic hormone given to dairy cows to increase milk
production, due to its adverse impacts on animals and
potential harm to humans."
Most organizations that expressed the opinion that rBST was safe in the early
1990's were dependent upon the FDA's research. This
data is highly questionable and much research has occurred since then that has
uncovered new evidence that rBST poses health
concerns.
How do I know if the dairy products I buy have come from rBST-treated cows?
Look at the label. If it's organic, then you know it's rBST / rBGH-free by
definition. Also, there are numerous conventional rBST / rBGH
-free dairies that label their products as "rBGH-free," "rBST-free," "Our
farmers pledge no artificial hormones," "This milk comes from
cows not treated with the growth hormone rBGH (or rBST)" or similar wording.
Typically, dairies that have policies against rBST WANT their customers to know.
However, dairies using rBST will never put that
information on their containers, knowing that many consumers are opposed to it.
If there is no information on the label referring to
rBGH (rBST), the dairy product most likely comes at least partly from rBST-injected
cows.
What can I do?
Protect yourself and your family by buying rBST / rBGH-free dairy products.
Tell others about rBGH.
Ask grocery stores and dairy processors to go rBST / rBGH-free
Get more information - here are some additional resources:
Websites:
Center for Food Safety
www.centerforfoodsafety.org
Family Farm Defenders
www.familyfarmdefenders.org
Food and Water Watch
www.foodandwaterwatch.org
Fox rBGH Lawsuit
www.foxbghsuit.com
Humane Farming Association
www.hfa.org
Organic Consumers Association
www.organicconsumers.org
Physicians for Social Responsibility, Oregon Chapter
www.oregonpsr.org
Books:
What's in Your Milk?
Samuel Epstein, MD
Seeds of Deception
Jeffrey Smith
DOCUMENTATION
rBST increases mastitis rates in cows:
Broom D. et al, Report of the (European Union) Scientific Committee on Animal
Health and Animal Welfare on Aspects of the Use of
Bovine Somatotropin, http://europa.eu.int , accessed March 1999.
Doohoo I. et al, Report of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association expert
panel on rBST, www.hc-sc.gc.ca, accessed April 10,
2004, section 7.
Freedom of Information summary for Posilac®, FDA, November 1993, Section 6-j.
Kronfeld D., Concerns about bovine somatotropin, Journal of the American
Veterinary Medical Association., July 15, 1993, 203
(2):190-192.
Kronfeld D., Recombinant bovine somatotropin and animal welfare, Journal of the
American Veterinary Medical Association., June 1,
2000, 216(11):1719-1720.
rBST increases IGF-1 levels in cows:
Freedom of Information summary for Posilac®, FDA, November 1993, Section 7 a-f.
Juskevich J. and Guyer G., Bovine Growth Hormone: Human Food Safety Evaluation,
Science, Aug. 24, 1990, 249(4971): 879-883.
Miller M. et al, unpublished report MSL 8673, Monsanto Agricultural Company,
1989.
Torkelson A. et al, Concentrations of IGF-1 in bovine milk, Journal of Dairy
Science, 1988, 71(52).
White T. et al, unpublished report MSL 8671, Monsanto Agricultural Company,
1989.
IGF-1 in milk may survive digestion:
Anderle, P. et al, In Vitro Assessment of Intestinal IGF-1 Stability, Journal of
Pharmaceutical Sciences, Jan. 2002, 91:1.
Kimura T. et al, Gastrointestinal absorption of recombinant human insulin-like
growth factor-1 in rats, Journal of Pharmacology and
Experimental Therapeutics, 1997, 283:611-618.
Playford R. et al, Effect of luminal growth factor preservation on intestinal
growth, Lancet, April 1993, 3(341):843-848.
rBST Internal Review Team, rBST "Gaps Analysis" Report, Health Protection
Branch, Health Canada, April 21, 1998.
Xian C. et al, Degradation of IGF-1 in the adult rat gastrointestinal tract is
limited by a specific antiserum or the dietary protein casein,
Journal of Endocrinology, 1995, 146:215-225.
IGF-1 levels in milk may be at a high enough level to affect human health:
Heaney R. et al, Dietary changes favorably affect bone remodeling in older
adults, Journal of the American Dietetic Association,
October 1999, 99:1229-1233.
Holmes M. et al, Dietary correlates of plasma insulin-like growth factor 1 and
insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3 concentrations,
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention,, Sept. 2002, 11(9):852-861.
Lahm H. et al, Growth regulation and co-stimulation of human colorectal cancer
cell lines by insulin-like growth factor I, II and
transforming growth factor alpha, British Journal of Cancer, March 1992,
65(3):341-346.
Ma J. et al, Milk intake, circulating levels of IGF-1 and risk of colorectal
cancer in men, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Sept. 5,
2001, 93(17):1330-1336.
Smith, G. et al, Editorial: Cancer and Insulin-like Growth Factor-1, British
Medical Journal, Oct. 7, 2000, 321:847-848.
Steinman, G., Mechanisms of Twinning:VII: Effect of Diet and Heredity on the
Human Twinning Rate, Journal of Reproductive
Medicine, May 2006, 51(5): 405-410.
IGF-1 is associated with increased cancer risk:
Chan J. et al, Plasma insulin-like growth factor-1 and prostate cancer risk: a
prospective study, Science, Jan. 23, 1998, 279
(5350):563-566.
Giovannucci E. et al, A prospective study of plasma IGF-1 and binding protein-3
and risk of colorectal neoplasia in women, Cancer
Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 2000, 9:345-349.
Hankinson S. et al, Circulating concentrations of insulin-like growth factor 1
and risk of breast cancer, Lancet, May 9, 1998, 351
(9113):1393-1396.
Kahan, Z. et al, Elevated levels of circulating insulin-like growth factor-1,
IGF-binding globulin-3 and testosterone predict hormone-
dependent breast cancer in postmenopausal women: a case-control study,
International Journal of Oncology, July 2006, 29(1): 193-
200.
Lukanova A. et al, Circulating levels of IGF-1 and risk of ovarian cancer,
International Journal of Cancer, October 20, 2002, 101
(6):549-554.
Moschos S. and Mantzoros C., The Role of the IGF System in Cancer: From Basic to
Clinical Studies and Clinical Applications,
Oncology, Nov. 4, 2002, 63(4):317-332.
Yu H. and Rohan T., Role of the Insulin-Like Growth Factor Family in Cancer
Development and Progression, Journal of the National
Cancer Institute, Sept. 20, 2000, 92(18):1472-1489.
Yu H. et al, Plasma levels of IGF-1 and lung cancer risk: a case-control
analysis, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Jan. 20,
1999, 91(2):151-156.
Scientific data compiled by:
Martin Donohoe, MD, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility
Michael Hansen, PhD, Consumers Union
Rick North, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility |
|
