Tuesday, June 15, 2010


Trans fats

"Trans fats have been implicated in higher risks of developing both heart disease and cancer. The list of problems associated with the consumption of trans fats, unfortunately, is not a short one: heart disease, obesity (by increasing the size of the fat cells), diabetes, low birth weight, allergies, asthma, and immunte dysfunction." (Barbee, p26)

"For years the FDA turned a blind eye to [the fact that trans fat disrupts cellular function and interferes with the use of essential fatty acids in the body], although recently they have begrudgingly decided that food labels will soon have to include trans fat in the estimation of total fat content. Why not ban it instead of just warning us? One would think the edible oil industry has the same clout as the tobacco companies.... This is a product suspected of causing death. Breast cancer rates are directly tied to trans fats, which are found in 'partially hydrogenated vegetable oil'... Government regulations permit products to be labeled as 'all natural' even if they have trans fats added to them in the form of partially hydrogenated vegetable oil. But the trans fats found in these oils do not behave like the trans fats that occur naturally in small amounts in certain animal foods like milk. Natural trans fats are converted to beneficial conjugated linoleic acid or to energy. To say that the partially hydrogenated oil added to countless food products is 'natural' is more than a little deceitful." (Barbee, p29)

Bovine Growth Hormone

"It is clear that this added hormone harms the cows, but what about the people who drink their milk? The FDA, which gave approval to rBGH in 1993, said that Monsanto's product was no different from the natural BGH already present in cow's milk and that it would have no specific impact on humans. Untrue. BGH acts as a growth hormone only in cows, we were told; the extra hormones in milk from injected cows would not be absorbed in the bloodstream. False, again.

"The problem for people may not be the rBGH per se, but rather what it does inside the cow: rBGH creates elevated levels of another hormone called IGF-1 (insulinlike growth factor), which occurs naturally in the human bodya nd is useful for a variety of metabolic functions. One study showed a sixfold increase of IGF-1 in milk form cows injected with rBGH. Elevated amounts of IGF-1, however, are of great concern. It must be remembered that hormones are unlike many drugs in that they are esxtrememly powderful in small amounts and can set up an entrire chain of events in the human body. The IGF-1 from milk is identical to that found in humans iand is not destroyed by pasteurization; nor is it destroyed in the human stomach. It is absorbed into the bloodstream, thereby raisnng levels of this potent hormone, which causes cells to divide. THe concern, of course, is with high amoutns of IGF-1 and its ability to promote cancer.

Monsanto has been very concerned about the public's reaction and possible mistrust of their new cow drug. And so it is no surprise that former Monsanto employee, who was rehired byh the company after hsi tenure at he FDA, was respobsible for writing regulations prohibiting food lables taht would tell consumers whether or not they were getting rBGS- treated products. Monsanto itself got into the act in 1994 by suing two milk processors for trying to label their proudcts "BGH free," and was reported to have sent out about 2000 warning letters to other diary processors and retailers.

Watch about Monsanto and Health Canada, and Fox TV in Tampa.

"The British journal Lancet reported a sevenfold increase in the risk of breast cancer in premenopausal women with the highest levels of IGF-1 in their blood. The publication Science reported a fourfold increased risk of prostate cancer in men with elevated levels of IGF-1, even though these levels were within the normal range. This growth hormone has also been implicated in cancers of the lung and colon. It is interesteing to note that elevated levels of IGF-1 are also caused by consumption of fluoride and soy protein. British researchers have cautioned agsint consuming substances that incrase concentrations of IGF-1 because of "the increasing evidence of the risk of cancer."

Dr. Michael Hansen, a researcher at the Consumer Union in New York, believes that hte risk of polyps and tumors from iGF-1 in treated milk, along with an inadequate or improper evaluation of its safety by the FDA is enough to pull rBGH off the market. In fact, every other country in the world prohibits its use. The IGF-1 in treated milk is absorbed in teh GI tract and is more bioactive than that in regular milk; these properties are enhanced by pasteurization.

Dr. Samuel S. Epstein at the University of Illinois in Chicago is an expert on the environmetnal causes of cancer and has frequently been called upon to give expert testimony before Congress. He cliams that the IGF-1 from rBGH-treated milk may well promote cancer of the breast and colon. He adds, "In short, with the active complicity of the FDA, the entire nation is being subjected to an experiment... it (rBGH) poses a major potential public health risk for the entire U.S. population. With the clear health risks to cows and the potential for rBGH to cause human tumors, how could the FDA have ever granted approval to market this drug? Did the long period of testing on animals before approval reveal no risks at all? Well, the FDA has kept these details under wraps.

You see, a key 90- day study on 30 rats conducted by Monsanto, which convinced the FDA to approve their drug, has never been made public- or even made availabe to the independent scientifific community.

No comments:

Post a Comment