Recombinant bovine growth hormone l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 49

RECOMBINANT BOVINE GROWTH HORMONE PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 318 Views
  • Updated On :
  • Presentation posted in: General

RECOMBINANT BOVINE GROWTH HORMONE. Physicians For Social Responsibility Oregon Chapter Rick North, Project Director Campaign For Safe Food. OUR GOAL. Discontinue the production of any dairy products in Oregon from cows treated with rBGH. www.freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com. OUR METHOD.

Download Presentation

RECOMBINANT BOVINE GROWTH HORMONE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Recombinant bovine growth hormone l.jpg

RECOMBINANT BOVINE GROWTH HORMONE

Physicians For Social Responsibility

Oregon Chapter

Rick North, Project Director

Campaign For Safe Food


Our goal l.jpg

OUR GOAL

Discontinue the production of any dairy products in Oregon from cows treated with rBGH

www.freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com


Our method l.jpg

OUR METHOD

Grassroots education campaign so that citizens can make an informed decision

www.pluk.org


Recombinant bovine growth hormone rbgh or rbst l.jpg

RECOMBINANT BOVINE GROWTH HORMONE (rBGH) OrrBST

· Genetically engineered drug produced by Monsanto

· Increases milk production 5-15%

· Estimated 10-15% of Oregon dairy cows injected


The problems with rbgh l.jpg

THE PROBLEMS WITH rBGH

  • Increases rates of 16 medical conditions occurring in cows – reduced pregnancy rates and birth weight of calves, increased diarrhea, foot disorders, lesions, somatic cell counts (pus), mastitis. Condemned by:

    • Humane Society of U.S.

    • Humane Farming Association

    • Farm Sanctuary

  • Mastitis/antibiotic resistance connection in humans

  • IGF-1 and cancer in humans


Igf 1 questions l.jpg

IGF-1 QUESTIONS

  • rBGH increase IGF-1?

  • Excessive IGF-1 promote cancer?

  • IGF-1 survive digestion?

  • Are the amounts high enough?

  • Other factors


Slide7 l.jpg

FDA


Fda 1994 ruling on labeling l.jpg

FDA 1994 RULING ON LABELING

FDA does not require labeling of any product from cows treated with rBGH – it is voluntary.

FDA recommendation for dairies not using rBGH: 

“No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from cows treated with rBGH and those not treated with rBGH.”

www.runnerduck.com


The monsanto fda revolving door l.jpg

Michael Taylor

FDA Deputy Commissioner For Policy (1991-94). Previously a partner at King & Spalding representing Monsanto.

THE MONSANTO-FDA REVOLVING DOOR

Margaret Miller

FDA Branch Chief for Hormones and Pharmacological Agents, other positions (1989 - ). Worked for Monsanto from 1985-89.

Suzanne Sechen

FDA Primary Review Officer for rBGH (1988-90). Previously a graduate student at Cornell doing rBGH research.

www.infosecuritymag.com


Dissent within the fda l.jpg

DISSENT WITHIN THE FDA

Alexander Apostolou, Director of Toxicology: “Sound scientific procedures for evaluating human food safety of veterinary drugs have been disregarded.”

- Forced to quit 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.”

– Reprimanded, threatened with dismissal, stripped of duties as supervisor

(Craig Canine, “Hear No Evil,” Eating Well, July/August 1991.)


Dissent within the fda11 l.jpg

DISSENT WITHIN THE FDA

Richard Burroughs, Reviewer for rBGH for nearly five years: “. . . the Center decided to cover up inappropriate studies and decisions.” Officials “suppressed and manipulated data . . .”

– Fired 

(Jeffrey Smith, Seeds of Deception, Chelsea Green Publishing, 2003.)


Congressional investigation gao l.jpg

CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION – GAO

www.hm-usa.nl

On human food safety risks:

“. . . we were unable to acquire the data from either the University of Vermont or from Monsanto . . .”

(Eleanor Chelimsky, “rBGH Vermont Review, Chronology of Events,” Memorandum from the U.S. General Accounting Office to U.S. Rep. Bernard Sanders, Oct. 27, 1992.)

“These risks are not covered by the FDA guidelines and have not been addressed for rBGH.”

(GAO, “Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone, FDA Approval Should Be Withheld Until the Mastitis Issue Is Resolved,” August 6, 1992.) 


Canadian scientists question rbgh safety l.jpg

www.tycohealthcare.com

CANADIAN SCIENTISTS QUESTION rBGH SAFETY

“Both procedural and data gaps were found which fail to properly address the human safety requirements of this drug . . .”

“. . . sterility, infertility, birth defects, cancer and immunological derangements were not addressed.”

“IGF-1 also can survive the GI tract . . . The full significance of this finding also was not investigated.”

(“rBST ‘Gaps Analysis’ Report,” Internal Review Team, Health Canada, April 21, 1998.)


Eu scientists question rbgh safety l.jpg

EU SCIENTISTS QUESTION rBGH SAFETY

www.padav.demon.co.uk

“. . . an association between IGF-1 and breast and prostate cancer is supported by epidemiological studies.”

“An increased use of antimicrobial substances in the treatment of rBST related mastitis which might lead to an increased risk of residue formation in milk and to the selection of resistant bacteria.”

(The European Commission, Report on Public Health Aspects of the Uses of Bovine Somatotropin, “Food Safety: From the Farm to the Fork,” March 15-16, 1999.)


International opposition l.jpg

INTERNATIONAL OPPOSITION

The Codex Alimentarius Commission, the U.N.’s

main food safety body, declined to declare rBGH safe in

1995, 1997 and 1999.

Industrialized nations banning rBGH: 

European Union (25 nations), includingAustria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom

New Zealand

Japan

Canada

Australia

www.un.org


2005 oregon dairies respond l.jpg

2005: OREGON DAIRIES RESPOND

  • April 1: Tillamook goes rBGH-free for cheese (not ice cream, butter, yogurt, sour cream)

  • June 1: Eberhard goes rBGH-free for all products

  • Nancy’s Yogurt and Lochmead start labeling their products rBGH-free


What you can do l.jpg

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Buy dairy products from dairies not using rBGH

Tell people you know

Stay informed – get on the PSR e-mail update list (approx. 2x per month)

Set up presentations to other groups


Additional slides l.jpg

ADDITIONALSLIDES


Slide20 l.jpg

“Problems cannot be solved at

the same level of awareness

that created them.”

- Albert Einstein

www.pmel.noaa.gov


Rbgh igf 1 and cancer l.jpg

rBGH, IGF-1 AND CANCER

NOT IN DISPUTE

IGF-1 is present and identical in cows and humans

rBGH increases IGF-1 in cows’ milk

Elevated IGF-1 promotes cancer in humans

Promotes cancer in humans

Elevated IGF-1

In humans

Increases IGF-1

in cows’ milk

rBGH

IGF-1 survive digestion?


Casein protects igf 1 l.jpg

CASEIN PROTECTS IGF-1

“ Casein (was) effective in preserving IGF-1 structural integrity (80%) and receptor binding activity. . .”

(C.J. Xian 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, v. 146, 1995.) 

“This paper clearly showed that IGF-1 can survive digestion (67%) when in the presence of casein.”

(Michael Hansen, Consumer Policy Institute, Letter to Maine Attorney General G. Steven Rowe, Feb. 11, 2003, citing T. Kimura et al, Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, v. 283, 1997.))

“Casein greatly enhanced the stability of IGF-1 . . .”

(P. Anderle et al, “In Vitro Assessment of Intestinal IGF-1 Stability,” Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, v. 91, 2002.)


British medical journal l.jpg

BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL

www.hrw.org

2000 EDITORIAL

“Given the increasing evidence of the risk of cancer, caution should be exercised in the exogenous use of either insulin-like growth factor-1 or substances that increase concentrations of it.”

(George Smith et al, Editorial: “Cancer and insulin-like growth factor-1,” British Medical Journal, vol. 321, October 7, 2000.)


Journal of the national cancer institute 2000 review l.jpg

www.gnb.ca

JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE2000 REVIEW

“Laboratory studies have shown that IGF’s exert strong mitogenic and antiapoptotic actions on various cancer cells.”

“The role of IGF’s in cancer is supported by epidemiologicstudies, which have found that high levels of IGF-1 . . . are associated with increased risk of several common cancers . . .”

(Herbert Yu, Thomas Rohan, “Role of the Insulin-Like Growth Factor Family in Cancer Development and Progression,” Journalof the National Cancer Institute, v. 92, Sept. 20, 2000.)


Oncology l.jpg

ONCOLOGY

www.longfellow.d21.k12.il.us

2002 REVIEW

“Recent evidence from epidemiologic studies has confirmed an association between serum levels of IGF’s and several malignancies . . .”

“It is now well established that IGF-1 enhances mitogenicity of breast cancer cells via a variety of mechanisms.”

(S. Moschos and C. Mantzoros, “The Role of the IGF System in Cancer: From Basic to Clinical Studies and Clinical Applications,” Harvard Medical School, Oncology, v. 63, n. 4, 2002.)


Significance of igf 1 levels from milk l.jpg

SIGNIFICANCE OF IGF-1 LEVELS FROM MILK

“Serum IGF-1 levels increased significantly in milk drinkers, an increase of about 10 percent above baseline.”

 (Robert Heaney et al, “Dietary changes favorably affect bone remodeling in older adults,” Journal of the American Dietetic Association, v. 99, October 1999.) 

“Our most consistent dietary finding was the positive association of IGF-1 levels with total dairy and milk intake (9.3%).”

(Michelle Holmes 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, v. 11, 2002.)


Antibiotic resistance most at risk populations l.jpg

ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCEMOST AT-RISK POPULATIONS

Children

Seniors

People with allergies

Cancer patients

www.sjhs.com

“The additional antibiotic use due to rBST use cannot help but contribute to the general problem of antibiotic resistance in pathogenic bacteria.”

(Michael Hansen, Ph.D., et al, “Potential Public Health Impacts of the Use of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin in Dairy Production,” Consumer Policy Institute, September 1997.)

USDA


Antibiotic resistance l.jpg

ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE

rBGH

In cows:

Increased infections and pus in milk

Increased use of antibiotics

Increased antibiotic resistance in bacteria

In humans:

IconBAZAAR

  • Increased antibiotic resistance. . . an increasing, multi-billion dollar per year problem

www2.wgbh.org


The rbgh difference in milk l.jpg

THE rBGH DIFFERENCE IN MILK

Monsanto’s rBGH adds one amino acid to the cow’s natural growth hormone protein.

rBGH is twice as immunogenic for certain antibodies than natural BGH.

IGF-1 levels in milk from rBGH-treated cows significantly increased

(Michael Hansen, Senior Research Associate, Consumer Policy Institute, Letter to Maine Attorney General G. Steven Rowe, Feb. 11, 2003, citing M.H. Erhard et al, Journal of Immunoessay, v. 15, 1994 and four Monsanto studies from 1988-1993.)


Rbgh s harmful effects on cows l.jpg

rBGH’s HARMFUL EFFECTS ON COWS

16 listed on original warning label – increases in:

Uterine infectionsDiarrhea

LesionsFoot disorders

Birth disorders Cystic ovaries

Somatic cell count (pus in milk)Mastitis (79% increase)

(Monsanto’s original Posilac® warning label; FDA Freedom of Information Summary NADA 140-872 Posilac®)

Opposed by:

Humane Society of the U.S.

Humane Farming Association

Farm Sanctuary


A decade of controversy l.jpg

A DECADE OF CONTROVERSY

Nov. 5, 1993 – FDA approves rBGH

1994 - Monsanto sues dairies in Texas and Iowa for advertising their milk as rBGH-free

1994 - Monsanto sends warning letters to dairies all over the country 

1997 - Monsanto threatens to sue Fox News for running an rBGH exposé in Tampa. The story is killed and the two reporters are fired.

1998 -Center For Food Safety files request to FDA to suspend use of rBGH.

2003- Monsanto sues Oakhurst for label:

“Our Farmers’ Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones.”


Maine the oakhurst controversy l.jpg

MAINE:THE OAKHURST CONTROVERSY

www.barkbytes.com

2000: Oakhurst goes rBGH-free

Their label: “Our Farmers’ Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones”

July 2003: Monsanto sues, saying Oakhurst is misleading the public

December 2003: Lawsuit settled, Oakhurst keeps label, adds FDA disclaimer


Maine consumers speak dairies listen l.jpg

MAINE:CONSUMERS SPEAK, DAIRIES LISTEN

www.barkbytes.com

Shaw’s Supermarkets:

-6 milk brands, no rBGH

Hanniford’s Supermarkets:

-9 milk brands, no rBGH


Scandal in canada l.jpg

SCANDAL IN CANADA

  • “The senators sat dumbfounded as Dr. Margaret Haydon told of being in a meeting when officials from Monsanto, Inc., the drug’s manufacturer, made an offer of between $1 million and $2 million to the scientists from Health Canada – an offer she told the senators could only have been interpreted as a bribe.”

  • (“Monsanto Accused of Attempt to Bribe Health Canada for rBGH Approval,” The Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa, Canada, Oct. 23, 1998)


30 rats in 90 days cpi canadians question l.jpg

30 RATS IN 90 DAYSCPI, CANADIANS QUESTION

  • Consumer Policy Institute: “ . . . 20 to 30 percent of the rats in the high dose group developed primary antibody responses to rBGH, suggesting it was being absorbed into the bloodstream. In the view of the Canadian scientists, and in our view as well, these are toxicologically significant changes, and should have triggered a full human health review . . .”

  • (Michael Hansen, Ph. D., Research Associate, “FDA’s Safety Assessment of Rcombinant Bovine Growth Hormone,” Consumer Policy Institute, December 15, 1998)


Slide36 l.jpg

Standard

Pasteurization

162° F.

15 seconds

FDA Test

Pasteurization

162° F.

30 minutes

(Paul Groenewegen et al, Journal of American Institute of Nutrition, v. 120, 1990)

“. . . At least 90% of bGH activity is destroyed upon pasteurization of milk. Therefore bGH residues do not present a human food safety concern.”Judith Juskevich, C. Greg Guyer, “Bovine Growth Hormone: Human Food Safety Evaluation, Science, v. 249, Aug. 24, 1990)


Fda monsanto statements l.jpg

FDA/MONSANTO STATEMENTS

Monsanto: “Posilac® does not alter the chemical composition of milk.” (www.monsanto.com)

Monsanto/FDA: “Dietary IGF-1 in milk and meat is broken down in the gastrointestinal tract by digestion.”

(“Questions And Answers About bST From The United States Food and Drug Administration,” www.monsanto.com, Nov. 18, 2003) 


Fda monsanto statements38 l.jpg

FDA/MONSANTO STATEMENTS

Monsanto/FDA: “There is absolutely no possibility that the consumption of milk from rBST-treated cows could increase the risk of breast cancer.”

(“Questions And Answers about bST From The United States Food and Drug Administration,” www.monsanto.com, Nov. 18, 2003.)

FDA: “FDA has examined the literature and finds no definite evidence of any direct link between IGF-1 and breast cancer.”

(“Report on the Food and Drug Administration’s Reviews of the Safety of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin,” www.fda.gov, FDA Center For Veterinary Medicine, Nov. 18, 2003.)


Second gao investigation l.jpg

SECOND GAO INVESTIGATION

www.click2disasters.com

On conflict of interest:

“The General Accounting Office found that two other FDA employees, Dr. Margaret Miller and Susan Sechen, had violated ethics rules 11 times.”

(Andrew Christiansen, “Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone,” for Rural Vermont, July 1995.) 

“GAO investigators were even more troubled by issues related to the role of Michael Taylor.”

(Marion Nestle, Safe Food, U. of California Press, 2003.)


Congressmen respond l.jpg

CONGRESSMEN RESPOND

Representatives George Brown, David Obey and Bernard Sanders: 

“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.”

(Letter to GAO comptroller general Charles Bowsher, April 15, 1994.)

Representative Sanders:  

“The FDA allowed corporate influence to run rampant in its approval of rBGH.”

(Bernard Sanders, Press Release, “GAO Uncovers Appearances Of Impropriety In FDA’s Approval Of RBGH, “ Oct. 30, 1994.)


Pressure from the top l.jpg

PRESSURE FROM THE TOP

www.rimag.com

Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture, 1995-2000:

“There was a lot of money invested in this (biotech), and if you’re against it . . . you’re stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on. You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view on some of the issuesbeing raised.”

(Bill Lambrecht, Dinner At the New Gene Café, Thomas Dunne Books, 2002.)


Pressure from the top42 l.jpg

PRESSURE FROM THE TOP

www.the-scientist.com

Henry Miller, FDA Office of Biotechnology Director, 1989 - 1994:

“In this area (biotech issues), the U.S. government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do.”

(Kurt Eichenwald et al, “Biotechnology Food: From the lab to a debacle,” New York Times, January 25, 2001.)


The precautionary principle l.jpg

The Precautionary Principle

  • State the goal

  • Engage appropriate public participation to evaluate all alternatives

  • Gather scientific, technical socioeconomic information; assess benefits, risks, costs

  • Decide upon least hazardous alternative; when in doubt, protect health and the environment


The precautionary principle44 l.jpg

The Precautionary Principle

“Even in the face of scientific uncertainty, society should take reasonable actions to avert risks where the potential harm to human health or the environment is thought to be serious or irreparable.”

U.S. Presidents’ Council on Sustainable Development (1996)

Better Safe Than Sorry


Slide46 l.jpg

IconBAZAAR


Psr s foundations l.jpg

PSR’S FOUNDATIONS

  • Scientific/medical, historical, social data

  • The Precautionary Principle


Acknowledgments l.jpg

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Martin Donohoe, M.D. – Oregon PSR

Michael Hansen, Ph.D. – Consumer Policy Institute

Ellen Kittredge – Center For Food Safety

Louisa Silva, M.D. – Oregon PSR


  • Login