IGF-1, Milk and Cancer

ACSH
By Ruth Kava, Ph.D., R.D.
August 29, 2007

Both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have ruled that companies that sell milk and other dairy products may state that the milk comes from cows that were not treated with recombinant bovine somatatropin (rBST)
http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.320/pub_detail.asp. This bioengineered hormone is identical to the one naturally produced by cows and, when injected, extends the period of milk production. Monsanto, the corporation that produces rBST, had sued to restrict such labeling.

Marketers who use the “our cows aren’t given rBST” approach are thus legally correct but scientifically wrongheaded. There’s nothing unhealthful or dangerous (to humans or cows) from using rBST, in spite of activists’ claims (does anyone doubt that the proponents of organic foods are behind these claims?). But the implication of this labeling is that the milk from rBST-treated cows is somehow inferior to that from
untreated cows, which it isn’t. Thus it perpetuates a myth about the supposed advantages of “natural” products.

While ACSH is in favor of truthful advertising and marketing, sometimes following the letter of the law can lead to the dissemination of misinformation. This is such a case.

Ruth Kava, Ph.D., R.D., is Director of Nutrition at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).

Source: American Council on Science and Health.

Alex Avery

Recently in his Animal and Dairy Sciences blog, Terry Etherton commented on the growing problem related to the pricing of dairy products marketed as “rbST-free” or “organic”.  His own observations, he stated, were backed up by recent American Farm Bureau Federation Marketbasket Surveys which showed that conventional dairy products are sold at much lower prices than “rbST-free” and “organic” products.  CGFI research has also found that to be the case.  In fact, recent grocery store checks conducted in cities such as Seattle, Philadelphia and Minneapolis have shown that milk marketed as “rbST-free” or “organic” is sold at prices as much as 100 percent higher than its conventional competition.  Something isn’t right about this situation!  Somebody is getting rich off of milk that is labeled one way, but is exactly the same compositionally- and I guarantee you it’s not the dairy farmer who has given up their right to use rbST to earn a living.  No…it’s not them.  In fact, they will have to work harder now to make the same amount of money they could have if they were producing conventional milk.  When are we as consumers going to stand up and say enough is enough?  When are we going to put a stop to the fear-mongering that is so prevalent and demand the right to purchase whatever kind of dairy we want to without the irrational fear that we could be endangering our loved ones?  Enough is enough.

The Augusta Chronicle
Damon Cline
August 12, 2007

Excerpt…

Milk from rBST-treated cows is safe for human consumption and has not been found to be different from milk from non-treated cows.
– U.S. Food and Drug Administration position statement of March 16, 1994

You might have heard about the recent decision by Kroger Co. to stop selling milk produced by dairies that use the hormone rBST on their cows.

Let me rephrase that: You must have heard about the recent decision, because Kroger said it was you, the consumer, who motivated it to become “rBST-free” by February 2008.

What’s that? You’ve never heard of rBST? How about its full name: recombinant bovine somatotropin? Some folks call it rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone). Still not ringing a bell?

Here’s what it is: A man-made copy of a hormone that is naturally produced in a cow’s pituitary gland. The lab-made hormone, like the natural one, stimulates milk production in cattle. It was approved for use by federal regulators in 1994 and is made here in Augusta by Monsanto Co.,* which markets it under the brand name Posilac.

Dairy farmers who purchase the hormone see their milk production increase by about 15 percent. The milk is not different; there is just more of it.

Kroger acknowledged this when it made its announcement Aug. 1, pointing out that “there is no difference” between milk produced at dairies that use rBST and those that don’t. Companies that shun rBST, including Safeway and Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, say essentially the same thing.

So why all the fuss? I’m trying to figure that out, but I suspect it has less to do with health and wellness, and more to do with marketing and merchandising.

Food marketers can create new, more expensive product categories if they can convince consumers that “rBST-free” dairy products are somehow better. Fortunately for the grocers, they don’t really have to work too hard – there’s no shortage of all-natural/organic/free-range/cruelty-free organizations out there passing off junk science as fact. According to these groups, rBST is bad for cows and maybe, just maybe (quick, get Michael Moore on the line!) can cause cancer in humans. The common theme is that because rBST is the result of biotechnology and engineering, it has to be bad.

These folks probably don’t like seedless watermelons, either.

Monsanto says the Kroger announcement will have little impact on its Augusta facility, which employs about 120, because in 2009 the company will begin moving production from a supplier in Belgium to the local plant. Common sense dictates that if every grocer stopped buying milk from dairies that use rBST, there no longer would be a market and the Augusta plant probably would shut down.

If that were to happen, and I doubt it would, I would raise my milk glass and give the facility a farewell toast. I won’t care whether the milk in the glass was produced by an rBST dairy or not, because in the end, it’s the same milk….

Full article at The Augusta Chronicle.

The Augusta Chronicle
Mark Tribby, D.V.M.

August 12, 2007

Excerpt…

I read with disappointment the announcement in The Augusta Chronicle recently by the Kroger Co. that they would no longer sell milk from cows that have been treated with rBST (a.k.a. recombinant bovine somatotropin, or growth hormone sold under the brand name Posilac). The reason stated was that customers of the grocery chain have preferred purchasing milk “free of hormones and antibiotics.”

It is a shame that Kroger has caved in to pressure from the uniformed rather than educating the public on their concerns. rBST has long been manufactured in Augusta by the Monsanto Co., employing more than 200 of our neighbors. It is simply a cost-effective management tool already used on one-third of the entire U.S. dairy herd (an injection into the cow, not the milk) that allows small dairy farmers to compete with the corporate giants in producing milk in an economical manner. Do we want our milk prices to spiral even higher by taking away a safe product that can level the playing field?

THE RBST supplement safely allows underproducing cows to increase the amount of milk produced to levels near naturally high-producing cows -but only if their health, nutrition and care are optimal. It doesn’t work on unhealthy or poorly cared-for cows.

The Food and Drug Administration has studied this drug more than any other animal drug to date. Its findings consistently show that milk from cows treated with rBST is identical with nontreated cows; the natural levels of BST are the same in treated or nontreated cows. Natural BST and rBST have no biological effects in humans, even when injected, much less consumed as a wholesome food, as has been the case for generations.

The FDA and the Georgia Department of Agriculture does not allow any antibiotics to be present in milk, and each tank from the dairy farm is tested for drug residues down to the parts-per-million level before it can be processed and sold. If any such substance is found then the entire bulk tank contents of milk are discarded, farmers are fined, and risk their livelihoods…(The writer is an Augusta veterinarian.)….

Full article at The Augusta Chronicle.

Environmental Views
Alex A. Avery and Dennis T. Avery
August 9, 2007

CHURCHVILLE, VA—A new study published in an alternative agriculture journal has gained widespread attention by claiming that organic farming not only could adequately feed the world, it might even yield more food and require less farmland. It is a truly sensational claim.

In science, the more sensational the claim, the more robust the evidence needed to support it. This time, the evidence doesn’t stack up. In fact, the evidence fell so far short that the journal that published the paper also published not one, but two scathing and dismissive “editorial responses” in the same issue. This is anything but a ringing endorsement.

A simple comparison of the authors of the paper and critiques is revealing. The “organic can too feed the world” authors are a collection of urban academics without any agricultural experience. The lead author studies fossil squirrel’s teeth at the University of Michigan’s Museum of Paleontology. The others are with Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Environment. In contrast, the authors of the two critiques are an agronomist at the University of Nebraska, Kenneth Cassman, and Colorado organic farmer Jim Hendrix.

As Cassman put it, “their analyses do not meet the minimum scientific requirements for comparing food production capacity in different crop production systems.”

First, many of the studies they relied upon to support their claim simply aren’t reliable. One large data set (comprising over half of the “yield ratios” they used to estimate food production in the developing world) are merely guestimates of increased productivity from a questionnaire sent to activists running organic “demonstration” farms. That doesn’t even remotely approach “science,” especially when the returned questionnaires include implausible organic yield increase claims of more than 500 percent. Another large dataset used by the Michigan researchers is so questionable that a paper critical of it published in the journal Field Crop Research was titled “Fantastic yields in the system of rice intensification: fact or fallacy?”

Central to this entire debate is the shortage of organic nitrogen fertilizer, a.k.a. manure. Currently, there is only enough animal manure to support one fifth of current global crop production. They only way to get more organically is to devote more land to legume crops or animal pastures that fix more nitrogen—which would require billions of acres of additional farmland the world doesn’t currently have.

The Michigan researchers dismiss this sobering reality by calculating that, theoretically, enough nitrogen can be fixed by growing cover crops during fall/winter and between crops to make up the shortfall. As Dwight Eisenhower once stated, “Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you’re a thousand miles from a corn field.”

The final, sadly amusing testimony to the fantasy world occupied by these researchers comes from the conclusion of their policy forum article, where they point to the shining example of Cuba as “one of the most progressive food systems in the world” where organic farming is successfully feeding a country. Ah, yes, the famed Cuban “agricultural enlightenment” brought about by the ending of Soviet industrial fertilizer and pesticide donations.

How has Cuba fared after “going organic?” According to unofficial statistics, Cuba suffers massive food shortages and rations basic food staples. But don’t take my word for it. Listen to these Cuban immigrants interviewed in a December 27, 2006 story on National Public Radio’s Morning Edition:

Joel Lopez, a skinny 19-year-old who arrived on Dec. 14, 2006 in Miami through the [immigration lottery], or Bomba as it is called in Cuba. Through a translator: “Everything is so surprising here, the cleanliness of the streets, the food, the shops. Well, there is no comparison. . . . I have been telling [my friends] about a Chinese buffet I went to. I told them about how you can serve yourself again and again!”

Sitting next to him is Louisa Martinez. Her husband was a baker in Cuba. But still for her, it’s the food that is the most dazzling. Through a translator: “Oh the food! Here there is a surfeit of food. Over there, there is a LOT of hunger. It’s terrible.”

So who are you going to believe: The urban pencil pushing elites, or the real farmers and real victims of the so-called “progressive food” movement?

ALEX A. AVERY is the Director of Research at the Hudson Institute’s Center for Global Food Issues and the author of The Truth About Organic Foods. Dennis T. Avery is a senior fellow at Hudson. Readers may contact them at The Center for Global Food Issues (http://www.cgfi.org/) Post Office Box 202, Churchville, VA 24421.