As reported in the June 25 New York Times article on "Genetically Altered Salmon," genetically altered foods "must be labeled--if they are different in their nutritional or natural properties or other characteristics." Genetically engineered milk is very different than natural milk, and clearly qualifies for FDA's explicit mandatory labeling.
This warning is also responsive to a June 21 announcement by Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) that "he would introduce three bills to comprehensively regulate all genetically engineered products and foods," and require that all such foods should be explicitly labeled.
Congressman Kucinich's concerns are well-based. These were detailed in a May 11, 2007 "Imminent Health Hazard" Citizens Petition submitted to Andrew von Eschenbach, M.D., Commissioner of Food and Drugs, by Samuel Epstein, M.D., Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition and four other leading scientific experts: Ronnie Cummins, Executive Director, Organic Consumers Association; John Kinsman, President, Family Farm Defenders; Arpad Pusztai, PhD, FRSE; and Jeffrey M. Smith, Executive Director, Institute for Responsible Technology.
This Petition detailed the abnormalities in milk from cows injected with the genetically modified bovine growth hormone (rBGH), commonly known as Posilac. However, the FDA failed to respond to, let alone even acknowledge this Petition.
On January 12, 2010, the "Imminent Health Hazard" Petition was again submitted to the FDA. However, Commissioner Margaret Hamburg dismissed this on alleged procedural grounds, which had not been raised in any prior Citizen Petitions. It should further be noted that her Deputy Commissioner is Michael Taylor, former counsel to Monsanto, and another biotech umbrella organization.
The 2007 and 2010 Petitions requested the FDA to suspend approval of Posilac on the grounds that it is different than natural milk, and also to require that milk produced with its use be labeled with warnings such as, "Produced with the use of Posilac (rBGH), and contains elevated levels of IGF-1, a major risk factor for breast, prostate and colon cancers."
There are a wide range of well-documented abnormalities in rBGH milk. These include: reduction in short-chain fatty acid and increase in long-chain fatty acid levels, posing cardiovascular risks; increase in levels of a thyroid hormone enzyme; frequency of pus cells in milk due to mastitis; and contamination of milk with unapproved drugs for treating mastitis.
More importantly, the abnormalities in rBGH milk also include excess levels of the natural insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) in rBGH milk, with increases ranging up to 20-fold. Based on six unpublished industry studies, FDA admitted that IGF-1 levels in rBGH milk were consistently and statistically increased, and that they were further increased by pasteurization. These increases were also admitted by Eli Lilly Industries in their application for marketing authorization in the European Community. It should also be noted that pasteurization of milk increases its IGF-1 levels by a further 70 percent.
IGF-1 is a protein fraction known as a peptide. As such, it survives digestion and is readily absorbed into the blood. It has been shown to have marked growth promoting effects following short-term feeding tests in rats. Most importantly, increased IGF-1 levels have been reported to increase risks of breast cancer by seven times in 19 scientific publications, colon cancer by five times in 19 publications, and prostate cancer by up to 5 percent in six publications.
Of generally unrecognized and critical importance is the fact that increased IGF-1 levels also block a natural defense mechanisms, known as apoptosis or programmed self-destruction. This protects against the growth and development of early submicroscopic cancers.
rBGH also increases ovulation and embryo survival, and increases the incidence of fraternal twins, as admitted by Monsanto on its November 1993 Posilac label. Multiple gestations are more prone to complications such as premature delivery, congenital defects and pregnancy-induced hypertension, than are single pregnancies.
Based on these well-documented public health and veterinary concerns, the use and import of rBGH dairy products has been banned by Canada, 29 European nations, Norway, Switzerland, Japan, New Zealand and Australia. It should further be emphasized that, on June 30, 1999, the United Nations Food Safety Agency, representing 101 nations worldwide, ruled unanimously not to endorse or set a safety standard for rBGH milk.
Finally, the FDA continues to recklessly mislead dairy producers and consumers with its false claim that "No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBGH-treated and non-rBGH treated cows."
Click here to endorse these concerns.
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. is professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health; Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition; Recipient of the 1998 Right Livelihood Award ("Alternative Nobel Prize") and the 2005 Albert Schweitzer Golden Grand Medal for International Contributions to Cancer Prevention; Author of over 270 scientific articles and 20 books on the causes and prevention of cancer, including Cancer-Gate: How To Win The Losing Cancer War (Baywood Publishing, 2005) and What's In Your Milk? (Trafford Publishing, 2006).
CONTACT:
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
Author of the 2006 "What's In Your Milk?" book
Professor emeritus Environmental & Occupational Medicine
University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health
Chicago, Illinois
Tel: 312-996-2297
Email: epstein@uic.edu
www.preventcancer.com
Please join the CPC on Facebook.
Samuel S. Epstein: An FDA Ban On Genetically-Engineered Milk Is 20 ...
Corporations do this so that other people injured by their products will have a much harder time and greater expenses putting together a case. Rather than making their products safe, the agribiz corporations continue to sell toxins and hide the cause of consumer illness.
Animal domestication that led the way to dairy food consumption occurred about 400 generations ago, out of the 100,000 generation heritage of homo erectus. Anecdotal estimates abound that the majority of humans are either allergic to or intolerant of compounds found in cow dairy food. It ranks in the top ten food allergens worldwide. The few exceptions are some Northern Europeans and a few native tribes in Africa.
In my opinion, the feeding of grains, soy and other unnatural foods to dairy cows, along with antibiotics and GM hormones, compounded with pasteurization and homogenization have truly turned modern dairy into a Frankenfood. If you insist on cow dairy, I suggest it be derived from raw milk from an A2 breed.
For a healthy substitute, try coconut milk.
A discussion and references can be found in "The Wellness Project."
Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www.MontecitoWellness.com
I love cooking and baking with coconut milk but I prefer to drink my DIY fresh chilled blissful Almond milk.
Your point being?
The others in the top 10 are peanuts, tree nuts, soy, eggs, fish, shellfish, wheat, sesame and sulfites.
I suppose nature didn't intend us to eat nuts, wheat, eggs, fish or any of those other things either right?
And the guy who wrote it works/worked for the U of IL? Does the U of IL Ag school endorse Epstein's statements about GM milk? something tells me....NO. Perhaps the U of IL needs to be informed of what one of their's is saying.
My guess is that the person who made that suggestion is just another wacky wingnut. I remain willing to be corrected, but I insist upon actual facts.
http://www.aquasmarter.com/ionizing_purification/cold_pasteurization_raw_milk.php
Throughout history, our ancestors drank unpastuerized milk.
"The first pasteurization test was completed by Louis Pasteur and Claude Bernard on April 20, 1864." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteurization
I dont consume any dairy products that were made using RBGH.
Monsanto was busted in Canada trying to bribe Health Canada officials to approve rBGH.
At that time, the only difference between whole milk, 2 percent, 1 percent and skim was the amount of cream we removed.
I'd be very surprised if fortifiers are being added. In the first place, that would increase costs. Secondly, the skim milk in my fridge today has a government required label of ingredients, and there's nothing that could be considered a fortifier.
I suspect that your problem stems from some other cause. Perhaps your metabolism craves fat?
Lots of folks with fat allergies have short-term problems if they eat less fat. I have no way of knowing if that's your problem, but it is more plausible than the idea you put forth.
I am reluctantly forced to agree with Zymos on this particular issue. I know a large number of dairy farmers. None of them "love their cows" the way I love my cats.
But the fact remains that dairy farmers have a mature, sophisticated appreciation of their livestock that goes way, way, w-a-a-a-y past any kind of immature "love" for cows.
The reality is that well-treated livestock is more profitable than abused livestock. It amazes me that there are people so ignorant that they need to have this explained.
government agencies backing them up! Don't f*ck with Mother Nature.
I honestly haven't decided what I think about using hormones in dairy cows. I don't know enough about that topic. However, I think it's very hard to follow Dr. Epstein's argument for a couple of reasons.
First of all, it's incorrect to say this involves "genetically engineered milk." Neither the cows nor the milk come from genetic engineering. The hormone is produced using biotech, but it is really no different from natural versions. My feeling is that if one thinks it's bad to use hormones in dairy cows, one should be opposed to the hormones regardless of their origin.
There's a very simply want to think about it. Most type 2 diabetics survive on daily injections of a hormone - insulin - that is produced through biotech. Genetic engineers inserted genes into yeast, and those genes have the yeast produce human insulin instead of alcohol.
Previously, diabetics got their hormones from pork slaughterhouses. The biotech version is cleaner, safer and works more effectively because porcine insulin is not a perfect substitute for human insulin.
My feeling is that if you favor using hormones in cattle, then you probably should favor the biotech hormone because it is cleaner and safer, just like biotech insulin. If you disapprove of using hormones this way, then you probably should oppose the natural version even more than the synthetic version.
Please stop confusing the issue with the "diabetic" argument people keep trotting out in every thread on GMOs. Diabetics are deliberately using a purified hormone, that, yes, is made using genetic engineering. It takes quite a leap to go from there to: "GMOs are in most of the food supply, so shut up and eat it whether you want to or not".
"Let's just pretend that farmers were giving these cows large amounts of BGH, but it was produced synthetically instead of by genetic engineering."
That's where you lost me. I don't claim to be all-knowing on this subject, but I am pretty sure that the only synthetic processes for making BGH require genetic engineering.
I've tried hard to get past this particular element and understand the rest of your comment, but I've failed. It seems incomprehensible to me. Would you please make another attempt to explain your point? I just don't understand.