Got Hormones - Monsanto's GM hormones for cows cause controversy

[Guest guest]

Got Hormones - Monsanto's GM hormones for cows cause controversy

" GM WATCH " <info

 

 

Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:17:12 GMT

 

 

Got Hormones - Monsanto's GM hormones for cows cause controversy

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

 

 

Posilac is a genetically engineered drug that increases milk production

in cows by 10-15%. It is also known as recombinant bovine growth

hormone, rbGH, Bovine Somatotropin, BST, and " Crack for Cows. " Its

controversial history has left fifteen years of frustrated

whistleblowers strewn

in its wake.

 

The hormone most critics are concerned about... is insulin-like growth

factor 1 (IGF-1). Natural milk contains IGF-1. Milk drinkers increase

their levels of IGF-1.10 Studies suggest that pre-menopausal women below

50 year old with high levels of IGF-1 are seven times more likely to

develop breast cancer.11 Men are four times more likely to develop

prostate cancer.12 IGF-1 is also implicated in lung and colon cancer.

Milk

from cows treated with rbGH has significantly higher levels of IGF-1.13

(No comprehensive study has evaluated a direct link between rbGH and

human cancer.)

 

This potential link between rbGH and cancer was one of the many

controversial topics to be covered in a four-part investigative news

series at

a Tampa-based Fox TV station. But four days before the series was to

air, Fox received a threatening letter from Monsanto's attorney. They

pulled the show.

------

Institute for Responsible Technology

Spilling the Beans, Dec. 1, 2004

 

Got Hormones - The Controversial Milk Drug that Refuses to Die

 

By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception

 

" Effective December 1, 2004, as a current customer, you will have

access to an increased supply of POSILAC. " 1 This news from Monsanto to

its

customers was disappointing for those around the world who understood

its consequences. Back in January, the company announced that they would

reduce their supply of the drug by 50%, after FDA inspectors discovered

unacceptable levels of contamination. Many people hoped that Posilac

would quietly disappear altogether. " If Monsanto gives this stuff up, it

would be a godsend to both cows and people, " 2 said Rick North who heads

up the campaign by Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility to fight

the drug. But on October 8, 2004, Monsanto announced it would be

increasing its supply back up to " at least 70%. "

 

Posilac is a genetically engineered drug that increases milk production

in cows by 10-15%. It is also known as recombinant bovine growth

hormone, rbGH, Bovine Somatotropin, BST, and " Crack for Cows. " Its

controversial history has left fifteen years of frustrated

whistleblowers strewn

in its wake.

 

Early casualties were scientists at the Food and Drug Administration

(FDA) during the drug's evaluation. Chemist Joseph Settepani, in charge

of quality control for the approval process of veterinary drugs at the

Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), testified at a public hearing

about threats to human safety. Soon after, he was reprimanded,

threatened,

stripped of responsibilities, and relocated a trailer at an

experimental farm. In later testimony before a congressional

subcommittee,

Settepani said, " Dissent [atCVM] is not tolerated if it could seriously

threaten industry profits. " 3

 

Division director Alexander Apostolou wrote in an affidavit, " Sound

scientific procedures for evaluating human food safety of veterinary

drugs

have been disregarded. I have faced continuous pressure from my CVM

superiors to reach scientific conclusions favorable to the drug industry.

.. . . In my time at CVM I have witnessed drug manufacturer sponsors

improperly influence the agency's scientific analysis, decision-making,

and fundamental mission. " 4 Apostolou was forced out after he began to

express his concerns.

 

FDA Veterinarian Richard Burroughs said that agency officials

" suppressed and manipulated data to cover up their own ignorance and

incompetence. " 5 He also described how industry researchers would often

drop sick

cows from studies, to make the drug appear safer. Burroughs had ordered

more tests than the industry wanted and was told by superiors he was

slowing down the approval. He was fired and his tests canceled.

 

The remaining whistle-blowers in the FDA had to write an anonymous

letter to Congress, complaining of fraud and conflict of interest in the

agency. They described one FDA scientist who arbitrarily increased the

allowable levels of antibiotics in milk 100-fold. This was necessary

before approving rbGH. Since the drug increases the chance of udder

infections, farmers inject cows with more antibiotics. This leads to a

higher

risk of antibiotic resistant diseases in cows and humans. According to

the letter, Margaret Miller authorized the increased levels. She had

formerly conducted research on rbGH while with Monsanto and then moved

into the FDA department that evaluated her own research.

 

Dr. Samuel Epstein, Professor at the University Of Illinois School Of

Public Health, cited numerous potential or theoretical health dangers

from rbGH, including " hormonal and allergic effects . . . premature

growth and breast stimulation in infants, " and possibly cancer in

adults.6

Epstein also received an anonymous box of stolen files from the FDA.

Documents revealed that in order to show that rbGH injections did not

interfere with fertility, industry researchers allegedly added cows to

the

study that were pregnant prior to injection. Also, blood hormone levels

skyrocketed by as much as a thousand-fold after injections.7

 

Monsanto tried to silence Epstein. Their public relations firm created

a group called the Dairy Coalition, which included university

researchers whose work was funded by Monsanto, and selected " third party "

experts and organizations. Representatives of the Dairy Coalition

pressured

editors of the USA Today, Boston Globe, New York Times and others, to

limit coverage of Epstein.

 

Hormones in Your Milk

 

Several claims made by FDA scientists in defense of rbGH have not held

up under scrutiny. For example, they said that bovine growth hormone

does not increase substantially in milk from treated cows. The study they

cited, however, shows a 26% increase in the hormone. Furthermore,

researchers injected cows with only a 10.6 mg daily dose of rbGH

compared to

the normal 500 mg bi-weekly dose used by farmers. In fact, they didn't

even use Monsanto's rbGH, but rather another version that was never

approved. They then pasteurized the milk 120 times longer than normal in

an apparent attempt to show that the hormone was destroyed during the

process. They only destroyed 19% of the hormone.8 They then spiked the

milk with powdered hormone-146 times the naturally occurring

levels-heated that 120 times longer than normal, and were then able to

destroy 90%

of the hormone. FDA scientists reported that 90% of the hormone was

destroyed during pasteurization.9

 

The hormone most critics are concerned about, however, is insulin-like

growth factor 1 (IGF-1). Natural milk contains IGF-1. Milk drinkers

increase their levels of IGF-1.10 Studies suggest that pre-menopausal

women below 50 year old with high levels of IGF-1 are seven times more

likely to develop breast cancer.11 Men are four times more likely to

develop prostate cancer.12 IGF-1 is also implicated in lung and colon

cancer.

Milk from cows treated with rbGH has significantly higher levels of

IGF-1.13 (No comprehensive study has evaluated a direct link between rbGH

and human cancer.)

 

This potential link between rbGH and cancer was one of the many

controversial topics to be covered in a four-part investigative news

series at

a Tampa-based Fox TV station. But four days before the series was to

air, Fox received a threatening letter from Monsanto's attorney. They

pulled the show. The station manager reviewed it, approved the content,

and scheduled it for the following week. A second letter arrived from

Monsanto's attorney, this time threatening " dire consequences for Fox

News. " 14 The show was postponed indefinitely. Jane Akre and Steve Wilson,

the award winning investigative reporters who had created the report for

Fox, say that they were offered hush money to leave the station and

never speak about the story again. They declined. So Fox's corporate

attorney led them in a series of rewrites, attempting to soften the

language

and apparently appease Monsanto. Six months and 83 rewrites later, the

reporters were ultimately fired for refusing to write in the script

that the milk from treated cows was the same as normal milk. The

reporters

argued that that Monsanto's own research showed a difference, such as

the increased IGF-1 levels, and even the FDA scientists had acknowledged

this.

 

The reporters sued. Akre was awarded $425,000 by a jury that agreed

that Fox " acted intentionally and deliberately to falsify or distort the

plaintiffs' news reporting on BGH, " 15 and that Akre's threat to blow the

whistle was the reason she was fired. But an appeals court overturned

the verdict on the grounds that the whistle-blower's statute only

protects people who threaten to report a violation of a law, rule, or

regulation. Distorting TV news, evidently, is not technically illegal.

Akre

and Wilson now have to pay a combined $196,500 to cover some of Fox's

legal costs. This is on top of the $200,000 - $300,000 they already spent

on their case.

 

Attacks on rbGH whistleblowers are not limited to the US. In 1998, six

Canadian government scientists testified before the Senate that they

were being pressured by superiors to approve rbGH, even though they

believed it was unsafe for the public. Their detailed critique of the

FDA's

evaluation of the drug showed how the US approval process was flawed

and superficial. They also testified that documents were stolen from a

locked file cabinet in a government office, and that Monsanto offered

them a bribe of $1-2 million to approve the drug without further

tests. (A

Monsanto representative went on national Canadian television claiming

that the scientists had obviously misunderstood an offer for research

money.) The Canadian scientists later described how their superiors

retaliated against them for testifying. They were passed over for

promotions, given impossible tasks or no assignments at all, one was

suspended

without pay. Three of the whistleblowers, who also spoke out on such

controversial topics as mad cow disease, were ultimately fired on July

14,

2004.

 

Most industrialized nations have banned rbGH. Within the US, many

school systems have also banned it and several dairies refuse to use it.

Oakhurst Dairy of Portland, Maine, for example, requires its suppliers to

sign a notarized affidavit every six months. The Oakhurst label stated,

" Our Farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones. " But on July 3,

2003, Monsanto sued the dairy over their labels. Oakhurst eventually

settled with Monsanto, agreeing to include a sentence on their cartons

saying that according to the FDA no significant difference has been shown

between milk derived from rbGH-treated and non-rbGH-treated cows. The

statement is not true. FDA scientists had acknowledged the increase of

IGF-1 in milk from treated cows. Nonetheless, the misleading sentence had

been written years earlier by the FDA's deputy commissioner of policy,

Michael Taylor. Prior to becoming an FDA official, Taylor was

Monsanto's outside attorney. He later worked at the USDA on biotech

issues, and

later became vice president of Monsanto.

 

Visit www.seedsofdeception.com for a list of non-rbGH dairies, article

references, and a free newsletter.

 

Publishers and webmasters may offer this article or monthly series to

your readers at no charge,

by e-mailing a request to us. Individuals may read the column each

month, by subscribing to a free newsletter at www.seedsofdeception.com.

Also on the site, you will find these newsletters formatted as a two page

handout.

 

© Copyright 2004 by Jeffrey M. Smith. Permission is granted to

reproduce this in whole or in part.

 

Note to rs: As of August, 2004, this publication no longer

summarizes the news on genetically engineered foods and crops. This is

because there are already other free electronic newsletters that do an

excellent job of this. We recommend GM Watch, www.gmwatch.org, and The

Campaign, www.thecampaign.org.

 

References

POSILAC® SUPPLY UPDATE October 8, 2004

Emailed correspondence

Craig Canine, " Hear No Evil: In its determination to become a model

corporate citizen, is the FDA ignoring potential dangers in the nation's

food supply? " Eating Well, July/August 1991

Craig Canine, " Hear No Evil: In its determination to become a model

corporate citizen, is the FDA ignoring potential dangers in the nation's

food supply? " Eating Well, July/August 1991

Craig Canine, " Hear No Evil: In its determination to become a model

corporate citizen, is the FDA ignoring potential dangers in the nation's

food supply? " Eating Well, July/August 1991

Samuel Epstein, " Growth Hormones Would Endanger Milk., " op-ed piece,

Los Angeles Times, July 27, 1989

Samuel Epstein and Pete Hardin, " Confidential Monsanto Research Files

Dispute Many bGH Safety Claims, " The Milkweed, January 1990

Robert Cohen, Milk, the Deadly Poison, Argus Publishing, Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey, 1998

Judith C. Juskevich and C. Greg Guyer, " Bovine Growth Hormone: Human

Food Safety Evaluation, " Science, 1990, vol. 249, pp. 875-884

Robert P. Heaney and others, " Dietary changes favorably affect bone

remodeling in older adults. " Journal of the American Dietetic

Association,

vol. 99, no. 10, October 1999, pp. 1228-1233 and " Milk, Pregnancy,

Cancer May Be Tied, " Reuters, September 10, 2002

S. E. Hankinson, and others, " Circulating concentrations of

insulin-like growth factor 1 and risk of breast cancer, " Lancet, vol.

351, no.

9113, 1998, pp. 1393-1396

June M. Chan and others, " Plasma Insulin-Like Growth Factor-1 [iGF-1]

and Prostate Cancer Risk: A Prospective Study, " Science, vol. 279,

January 23, 1998, pp. 563-566

C. G. Prosser and others, " Increased secretion of insulin-like growth

factor-1 into milk of cows treated with recombinantly derived bovine

growth hormone, " Journal of Dairy Science, vol. 56, 1989, pp. 17-26; and

Peter Montague " Milk, rbGH, and Cancer, " Rachel's Environment and Health

News, no. 593, April 9, 1998

BGH Bulletin, Target Television Enterprises Inc.,

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/

BGH Bulletin, Target Television Enterprises Inc.,

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/

 

 

 

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