--Dan Worley in Sunny Puerto Rico--
>X-Sender: rwolfson@pop3.concentric.net
>Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 20:35:03 -0500
>To: info@natural-law.ca
>From: Richard Wolfson <rwolfson@concentric.net>
>Subject: RACHEL #593: Milk, rBGH, and Cancer
>
>=======================Electronic Edition======================== .
>RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #593 Milk, rBGH, and Cancer---April
>9, 1998---
>Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 Fax
>(410) 263-8944; website: http://www.monitor.net/rachel/ Subscriptions are
>free. To subscribe, E-mail the words . . SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-WEEKLY
>YOUR NAME to: listserv@rachel.org. .
>=================================================================
>
>MILK, RBGH AND CANCER
>
>Two veteran news reporters for Fox TV in Tampa, Florida have been fired for
>refusing to water down an investigative report on Monsanto's controversial
>milk hormone, rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone). Monsanto's rBGH is
>a genetically-engineered hormone sold to dairy farmers, who inject it into
>their cows every two weeks to increase milk production. In recent years,
>evidence has accumulated indicating that rBGH may promote cancer in humans
>who drink milk from rBGH-treated cows. It is the link between rBGH and
>cancer that Fox TV tried hardest to remove from the story.
>
>In the fall of 1996, award-winning reporters Steve Wilson and Jane Akre
>were hired by WTVT in Tampa to produce a series on rBGH in Florida milk.
>After more than a year's work on the rBGH series, and three days before the
>series was scheduled to air starting February 24, 1997, Fox TV executives
>received the first of two letters from lawyers representing Monsanto saying
>that Monsanto would suffer "enormous damage" if the series ran. WTVT had
>been advertising the series aggressively, but canceled it at the last
>moment. Monsanto's second letter warned of "dire consequences" for Fox if
>the series aired as it stood. (How Monsanto knew what the series contained
>remains a mystery.) According to documents filed in Florida's Circuit Court
>(13th Circuit), Fox lawyers then tried to water down the series, offering
>to pay the two reporters if they would leave the station and keep mum about
>what Fox had done to their work. The reporters refused Fox's offer, and on
>April 2, 1998, filed their own lawsuit against WTVT.
>
>Steve Wilson has 26 years' experience as a working journalist and has won
>four Emmy awards for his investigative reporting. His wife, Jane Akre, has
>been a reporter and news anchor for 20 years, and has won a prestigious
>Associated Press award for investigative reporting.
>
>The Wilson/Akre lawsuit charges that WTVT violated its license from the
>Federal Communications Commission (FCC) by demanding that the reporters
>include known falsehoods in their rBGH series. The reporters also charge
>that WTVT violated Florida's "whistle blower" law. Many of the legal
>documents in the lawsuit --including Monsanto's threatening letters --have
>been posted on the world wide web at http://www.foxbghsuit.com for all to
>see.
>
>No one will be surprised to learn that powerful corporations can intimidate
>TV stations into re-writing the news, but this case offers an unusually
>detailed glimpse of specific intimidation tactics and their effects inside
>a news organization. It is not pretty.
>
>It has been well-documented by Monsanto and by others that rBGH-treated
>cows undergo several changes: their lives are shortened, they are more
>likely to develop mastitis, an infection of the udder (which then requires
>use of antibiotics, which end up in the milk along with increased pus), and
>they produce milk containing elevated levels of another hormone called
>IGF-1. It is IGF-1 that is associated with increased likelihood of human
>cancers.[1] (See REHW #381, #382, #383, #384, #483, but especially #454.)
>
>The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved rBGH for use in cows
>in 1993, but the approval process was controversial because former Monsanto
>employees went to work for the FDA, oversaw the approval process, then went
>back to work for Monsanto. (See REHW #381.)
>
>Monsanto is notorious for marketing dangerous products while falsely
>claiming safety. The entire planet is now contaminated with
>hormone-disrupting, cancer-causing PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), thanks
>to Monsanto's poor judgment and refusal to be guided by early scientific
>evidence indicating harm. (See REHW #327, #328.) The 2,4,5-T in Agent
>Orange --the herbicide that has brought so much grief to tens of thousands
>of Vietnam veterans --is another example of Monsanto's poor judgment and
>failure to heed scientific evidence to prevent harm. Critics says rBGH is
>just one more example of Monsanto's monumentally poor judgment. When Wilson
>and Akre asked Monsanto officials to respond to these allegations of past
>poor judgment, Monsanto had no comment.
>
>The Wilson/Akre rBGH series (a script of which is available on the web site
>www.foxbghsuit.com) makes the following points:
>
>** rBGH was never properly tested before FDA allowed it on the market. A
>standard cancer test of a new human drug requires two years of testing with
>several hundred rats. But rBGH was tested for only 90 days on 30 rats.
>This short-term rat study was submitted to FDA but was never published.
>FDA has refused to allow anyone outside FDA to review the raw data from
>this study, saying it would "irreparably harm" Monsanto.[2] Therefore the
>linchpin study of cancer and rBGH has never been subjected to open
>scientific peer review.
>
>** Some Florida dairy herds grew sick shortly after starting rBGH
>treatment. One farmer, Charles Knight --who lost 75% of his herd --says on
>camera that Monsanto and Monsanto-funded researchers at University of
>Florida withheld from him the information that other dairy herds were
>suffering similar problems. He says Monsanto and the university
>researchers told him only that he must be doing something wrong.
>
>** The law required Monsanto to notify the FDA if they received complaints
>by dairy farmers such as Charles Knight. But four months after Knight
>complained to Monsanto, FDA had heard nothing from Monsanto. Monsanto's
>explanation? Despite a series of visits to Knight's farm, and many phone
>conversations, Monsanto officials say it took them four months to figure
>out that Knight was complaining about rBGH.
>
>** Monsanto claims on camera that every truckload of milk is tested for
>excessive antibiotics --but Florida dairy officials and scientists on
>camera say this is simply not true.
>
>** Monsanto says on camera that Canada's ban on rBGH has nothing to do with
>human health concerns --but Canadian government officials speaking on
>camera say just the opposite.
>
>** Canadian government officials, speaking on camera, say they believe
>Monsanto tried to bribe them with offers of $1 to $2 million to gain
>approval for rBGH in Canada. Monsanto officials say the Canadians
>misunderstood their offer of "research" funds.
>
>** Monsanto officials claim on camera that "the milk has not changed"
>because of rBGH treatment of cows. As noted earlier, there is abundant
>evidence --some of it from Monsanto's own studies --that this is definitely
>not true.
>
>** On camera, a Monsanto official claims that Monsanto has not opposed
>dairy co-ops labeling their milk as "rBGH-free." But this is definitely
>not true. Monsanto brought two lawsuits against dairies that labeled their
>milk "rBGH-free." Faced with the Monsanto legal juggernaut, the dairies
>folded and Monsanto then sent letters around to other dairy organizations
>announcing the outcome of the two lawsuits --in all likelihood, for
>purposes of intimidation. (Conveniently, the FDA regulations that
>discourage labeling of milk as "rBGH-free" were written by Michael Taylor,
>an attorney who worked for Monsanto both before and after his tenure as an
>FDA official. See REHW #381.)
>
>At the web site www.foxbghsuit.com, you will find the version of the
>Wilson/Akre rBGH series as it was re-written by Fox's attorneys. It has
>been laundered and perfumed. Most importantly, nearly all of the
>references to cancer have been removed from the script. Instead of cancer
>we now have "human health effects" --whatever those may be.
>
>The Wilson/Akre lawsuit comes at an especially good time to publicize the
>relationship between rBGH and human cancer because new evidence has come to
>light.
>
>When a cow is injected with rBGH, its milk production is stimulated, but
>not directly. The presence of rBGH in the cow's blood stimulates
>production of another hormone, called Insulin-Like Growth Factor 1, or
>IGF-1 for short. It is IGF-1 that stimulates milk production.
>
>IGF-1 is a naturally-occurring hormone-protein in both cows and humans.[3]
>The IGF-1 in cows is chemically identical to the IGF-1 in humans.[4] The
>use of rBGH increases the levels of IGF-1 in the cow's milk, though the
>amount of the increase is disputed. Furthermore, IGF-1 in milk is not
>destroyed by pasteurization. Because IGF-1 is active in humans --causing
>cells to divide --any increase in IGF-1 in milk raises obvious questions:
>will it cause inappropriate cell division and growth, leading to growth of
>tumors?
>
>The Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association
>formally expressed concern about IGF-1 related to rBGH in 1991, saying,
>"Further studies will be required to determine whether ingestion of higher
>than normal concentrations of bovine insulin-like growth factor [IGF-1] is
>safe for children, adolescents, and adults."[5]
>
>Monsanto's public position since 1994 has been that IGF-1 is not elevated
>in the milk from rBGH-treated cows --despite its own studies to the
>contrary. For example, writing in the British journal, LANCET, in 1994,
>Monsanto researchers said "...IGF-1 concentration in milk of rBST-treated
>cows is unchanged," and "...there is no evidence that hormonal content of
>milk from rBST-treated cows is in any way different from cows not so
>treated."[6] [Monsanto calls rBGH rBST (recombinant bovine somatotropin),
>thus avoiding use of the word 'hormone.'] However, in a published letter,
>the British researcher T. B. Mepham reminded Monsanto that in its 1993
>application to the British government for permission to sell rBGH in
>England, Monsanto itself reported that "the IGF-1 level went up
>substantially [about five times as much]."[7] The U.S. FDA acknowledges
>that IGF-1 is elevated in milk from rBGH-treated cows.[4] Other proponents
>of rBGH acknowledge that it at least doubles the amount of IGF-1 hormone in
>the milk.[8] The earliest report in the literature found that IGF-1 was
>elevated in the milk of rBGH-treated cows by a factor of 3.6.[9]
>
>Does IGF-1 promote cancer? In January of this year a Harvard study of
>15,000 white men published in SCIENCE reported that those with elevated
>--but still normal --levels of IGF-1 in their blood are 4 times as likely
>as average men to get prostate cancer.[1] The SCIENCE report ends saying,
>"Finally, our results raise concern that administration of GH [growth
>hormone] or IGF-1 over long periods, as proposed for elderly men to delay
>the effects of aging, may increase risk of prostate cancer." By analogy,
>Monsanto's current efforts to increase the IGF-1 levels in America's milk
>supply raise the question: if little boys drink milk from rBGH-treated cows
>over long periods, will the elevated levels of IGF-1 increase their
>prostate cancer rates? This is not a question that should be answered by a
>wholesale experiment on the American people --but that is precisely what
>Monsanto is currently doing. It is difficult to put a happy face on this,
>try as Fox might.
>
>The Wilson/Akre story is one of talented, hard-working journalists trying
>to tell an important public health story, exposing lies and corruption by
>Monsanto, by the FDA, and now by Fox, too. If nothing else, perhaps the
>courage of Steve Wilson and Jane Akre will awaken many more of us to the
>potential dangers of Monsanto's latest experiment on America's children.
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Richard Wolfson, PhD
>Consumer Right to Know Campaign,
>for Mandatory Labelling and Long-term
>Testing of all Genetically Engineered Foods,
>500 Wilbrod Street
>Ottawa, ON Canada K1N 6N2
>tel. 613-565-8517 fax. 613-565-1596
>email: rwolfson@concentric.net
>
>Our website, http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic/geindex.html
>contains more information on genetic engineering as well as
>previous genetic engineering news items
>Subscription fee to genetic engineering news is $35 for 12 months
>See website for details.
>__________________________________________________________
>__________________________________________________________
>
>
>
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".