Greenhouse gasses from cars, trucks,and busses are less than what results from animal agriculture.A United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report published in 2006 points the finger at livestock operations globally. The study asserts that a 50% decrease must be achieved in order to avoid increasing the current level of environmental damage.
Animal farms around the world generate 18% more greenhouse emissions than all of the previously mentioned transportaion methods combined. Further, livestock production currently occupies 30 percent of earths land surface. The areas used for grazing are a major source of deforestation, particularly in Latin America, where 70% of former forest lands are used for grazing.
By far the most important non-CO2 greenhouse gas is methane, and the number one source of methane worldwide is animal agriculture.[1]
Methane is responsible for nearly as much global warming as all other non-CO2 greenhouse gases put together.[2] Methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2.[3] While atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen by about 31% since pre-industrial times, methane concentrations have more than doubled.[4] Whereas human sources of CO2 amount to just 3% of natural emissions, human sources produce one and a half times as much methane as all natural sources.[5] In fact, the effect of our methane emissions may be compounded as methane-induced warming in turn stimulates microbial decay of organic matter in wetlands—the primary natural source of methane.[6]
With methane emissions causing nearly half of the planet’s human-induced warming, methane reduction must be a priority. Methane is produced by a number of sources, including coal mining and landfills—but the number one source worldwide is animal agriculture.[7] Animal agriculture produces more than 100 million tons of methane a year.[8] And this source is on the rise: global meat consumption has increased fivefold in the past fifty years, and shows little sign of abating.[9] About 85% of this methane is produced in the digestive processes of livestock,[10] and while a single cow releases a relatively small amount of methane,[11] the collective effect on the environment of the hundreds of millions of livestock animals worldwide is enormous. An additional 15% of animal agricultural methane emissions are released from the massive “lagoons” used to store untreated farm animal waste,[1] and already a target of environmentalists’ for their role as the number one source of water pollution in the U.S.[13]
The conclusion is simple: arguably the best way to reduce global warming in our lifetimes is to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products. Simply by shifting to a plant-based diet[14][15][16] we can eliminate one of the major sources of emissions of methane, the greenhouse gas responsible for almost half of the global warming impacting the planet today.
1. Animal agriculture is also a major source of nitrous oxide emissions, another important greenhouse gas 310 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. 73% of U.S. emissions of nitrous oxide come from animal grazing, manure management, and crop growing practices—with half of U.S. crops grown for livestock feed. Agricultural emissions of nitrous oxide in the U.S. increased 9% from 1990 to 2002. “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990-2002,” EPA 430-R-04-003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 15 April 2004, p. ES-16, http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/ emissions.
2. Hansen and Sato, supra note 11. Estimated climate forcing of methane from 1850 to 2000 is 0.7 W/m2, while estimated forcing of CFCs, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide combined is 0.9 W/m2.
3. “Global Warming Potentials”, supra note 10.
4. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen from 278 parts per million (ppm) in 1750 to 365 ppm in 1998. Atmospheric concentrations of methane have increased by 149% since 1750, from .700 ppm to 1.745 ppm. “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2002”, Chapter 1, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, October 2003, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt.
5. Natural sources emit 770 billion metric tons of CO2, and 239 million metric tons of methane, compared to 23.1 billion and 359 million, respectively, for anthropogenic sources. “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2002”, supra note 20.
6. Hansen, et al, supra note 5. It is also possible that warming may dampen natural sources of methane by drying out wetlands.
7.Animal agriculture is responsible for 32% of global methane emissions from human activity, including 28% from domesticated livestock and 4% from livestock manure. Natural gas is the second largest source, accounting for 15% of emissions. Kruger, Dina, “The Role of ‘Other Gases’ in Addressing Climate Change”, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 12 Feb 2004, http://www.iges.or.jp/en/cp/ output_all/workshop/usjapan/pdf/06Kruger.pdf.
8. “Emissions of methane from livestock”, Climate Change Fact Sheet 32, Information Unit on Climate Change (IUCC), UNEP, 1 May 1993, http://www.unep.ch/iucc/fs032.htm.
9. World meat production reached 242 million tons in 2002, from 122 million tons in 1977, and from 44 million tons in 1950. Additionally, per capita meat consumption has more than doubled since 1950, from 17 to 39 kg per person. Vital Signs 2003, Worldwatch Institute, May 2003, p.30-31, http://www.worldwatch.org/pubs/vs/2003. The majority of the meat is consumed by developed countries. Delgado, Christopher et al., Livestock to 2020: The Next Food Revolution, “Food, Agriculture, and the Environment Discussion Paper 28”, International Food Policy Research Institute, May 1999, http://www.ifpri.org/2020/dp/dp28.pdf.
10. “The Role of ‘Other Gases’ in Addressing Climate Change”, supra note 23. Methane emissions come particularly from ruminant animals, like cows, sheep, buffalo, and goats, but also from non-ruminants like pigs and horses. “Emissions of methane from livestock”, supra note 24.
11.Not including methane released from manure, an adult cow produces 80-110 kg of methane a year. “Frequent Questions”, Ruminant Livestock, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/rlep/faq.html.
12.“The Role of ‘Other Gases’ in Addressing Climate Change”, supra note 23.
13.“Water Quality Conditions in the United States”, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 2002, http://www.epa.gov/305b/2000report.
14.Herein, the term “vegetarian” is used to refer not just to a meatless diet, but to one free of animal products, i.e. a “vegan” diet. Dairy cows, for example, produce even more methane per animal than beef cattle. Logically, the same concerns extend beyond diet to the consumption of other consumer goods derived from livestock, like wool and leather.
15.Because ruminant livestock produce far more methane than non-ruminant livestock, reductions in agricultural methane can also be achieved by shifting consumption away from cows and sheep in favor of chickens and pigs. However, the benefits of such shifts are not simple; for example, in the U.S., manure from pigs produces more than five times as much methane as manure from beef cattle. (“Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990-2002”, p. 181, supra note 17.) Moreover, the large scale production of these animals in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) is associated with numerous other environmental harms already extensively documented by environmental organizations, making the trade of one environmental danger for another a Faustian bargain.
16.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to address methane from livestock amount to encouraging changes in feed and increasing the amount of product (meat, milk, offspring) per animal. Even at best such efforts are unlikely to achieve large reductions in emissions per animal, and any such reductions are easily swamped by increases in the number of animals raised overall. Methane emissions from manure can also be captured and used to produce energy.
Showing posts with label Food and Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Food and Politics. Show all posts
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Lose Weight by Eating More Dairy?...Maybe Not So Fast
Dairy Diet Myth
You’ve probably seen the ads in magazines or on TV. “Milk, cheese-
yogurt. Burn more fat, lose weight.” Drink 24 ounces
of milk every 24 hours and that skinny hourglass figure will be
yours. Eat three servings of yogurt every day and squeeze into
that itsy-bitsy bikini...
Beginning October 2003 "Drink Milk... Lose Weight" ads ran in over 30 newspapers and magazines when the dairy industry launched an entire "Healthy Weight with Milk" campaign to boost sales. Curiously, that also happened to be the same year a review of that exact subject was published in the Journal of Nutrition. The review found nine randomized controlled studies in the medical literature on body weight and dairy. Seven of the nine studies found no significant change in body weight compared to controls and the last two found that those who increased their dairy consumption gained significantly more weight than the nondairy control groups.[1] Subsequent and even larger studies published in 2004[2] and 2005[3] showed the exact same thing.
So, wait a second. How can the dairy industry's ads claim that "a clinical study shows it helps you burn more fat and lose more weight than just cutting calories alone?" Well, because there are actually three small published studies that found greater weight loss in people who were told to cut calories and eat dairy foods and all were done by one researcher with a patent on the claim. Michael Zemel of the University of Tennessee, found that study participants instructed to eat more dairy did seem to lose more weight. Yes, of course the studies were bought and paid for by the dairy industry, but it goes further than that. This guy Zemel owns a patent on the claim that dairy foods aid weight loss, which is licensed to dairy food manufacturers. As the Center for Science in the Public Interest noted, "In the world of patents and PR, a little science can go a long way."[4] For an in depth analysis of Zemels work and how it is assisting the Dairy Industry check out the Nutrition Action Health Letter Spetember 2005 available online at cspinet.org
Similar maneuverings were involved in the increased dairy recommendation in the new USDA Dietary Guidelines, even though a recent World Health Organization review found no significant relationship at all between low dairy consumption and osteoporotic fracture risk.[5] Assigned to write the dairy guideline was Connie Weaver, head of nutrition at Purdue University and a funding favorite of the National Dairy Council. Walter Willet, head of nutrition at Harvard, calls the guideline committee's report "egregious," accusing them of ignoring the evidence linking dairy to cancer. "There is no nutritional requirement for dairy," Dr. Willet told the Wall Street Journal, "at all."[6]
To hopefully clear up the dairy/weight question once and for all, on June 6, 2005, Harvard researchers published what may be considered the definitive study on the subject in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. A study which followed the milk-drinking habits of not 11 kids, or even 12 kids, but over 12,000 kids! After following these 9- though 14-year-olds for years, they found that "children who reported higher total milk intake experienced larger weight gains." The more milk they drank, the heavier they became. Boys who drank the "recommended" three servings of milk a day were 35% more likely to become overweight and girls who drank three servings were 36% more likely to become overweight over time.[7]
"Given the high prevalence of lactose intolerance, the energy content and saturated fat in milk, and evidence that dairy products may promote both male (prostate) and female (ovarian) cancers, we should not assume that high intakes [of dairy] are beneficial," the researchers told reporters. "Furthermore, these cancers may be linked to consumption during adolescence."[8]
What most surprised the researchers was that those who drank low-fat milk (skim and 1%) gained the most weight of all! The weight gain seemed tied more to the dairy protein intake than the dairy fat intake (extra whey protein is often added to low-fat milk during processing). Although there are at least four human studies that show that the dairy protein whey itself may promote weight gain, the researchers guessed that the blame lay in the growth hormones in milk, like the sex steroid estrone found in whey. After all, milk is designed by mother nature to start an 80-pound calf on her way to 1,400 pounds by her second birthday.
This new study has serious implications for our childhood obesity epidemic, which not only has devastating health consequences but social consequences as well. A study released the same week by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control found that teens who perceived themselves as overweight were more than twice as likely to attempt suicide.[9]
[1] Barr SI. "Increased Dairy Product or Calcium Intake: Is Body Weight or Composition Affected in Humans?" Journal of Nutrition 133(2003):245-8S.
[2] Obesity Research 12(2004):A23.
[3] Gunther CW, Legowski PA, Lyle RM, et al. "Dairy Products Do Not Lead to Alterations in Body Weight or Fat Mass in Young Women In A 1-Y Intervention." Am J Clin Nutr 2005;81:751-6.
[4] "Dairy Does Diets." Nutrition Action Healthletter September 2004:8.
[5] Kanis JA, et al."A Meta-Analysis of Milk Intake and Fracture Risk: Low Utility For Case Finding." Osteoporisis International 21 October 2004.
[6] Zamiska N. "How Milk Got a Major Boost By Food Panel." Wall Street Journal 30 August 2004:B1.
[7] Berkey CS, et al. "Milk, Dairy Fat, Dietary Calcium, and Weight Gain ." Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 1599(2005):543-50.
[8] Fox M. "Milk may make for heavier kids, study finds." Reuters 6 June 2005.
[9] Eaton DK, et al. "Associations of Body Mass Index and Perceived Weight With Suicide Ideation and Suicide Attempts Among US High School Students." Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 1599(2005):513-9.
You’ve probably seen the ads in magazines or on TV. “Milk, cheese-
yogurt. Burn more fat, lose weight.” Drink 24 ounces
of milk every 24 hours and that skinny hourglass figure will be
yours. Eat three servings of yogurt every day and squeeze into
that itsy-bitsy bikini...
Beginning October 2003 "Drink Milk... Lose Weight" ads ran in over 30 newspapers and magazines when the dairy industry launched an entire "Healthy Weight with Milk" campaign to boost sales. Curiously, that also happened to be the same year a review of that exact subject was published in the Journal of Nutrition. The review found nine randomized controlled studies in the medical literature on body weight and dairy. Seven of the nine studies found no significant change in body weight compared to controls and the last two found that those who increased their dairy consumption gained significantly more weight than the nondairy control groups.[1] Subsequent and even larger studies published in 2004[2] and 2005[3] showed the exact same thing.
So, wait a second. How can the dairy industry's ads claim that "a clinical study shows it helps you burn more fat and lose more weight than just cutting calories alone?" Well, because there are actually three small published studies that found greater weight loss in people who were told to cut calories and eat dairy foods and all were done by one researcher with a patent on the claim. Michael Zemel of the University of Tennessee, found that study participants instructed to eat more dairy did seem to lose more weight. Yes, of course the studies were bought and paid for by the dairy industry, but it goes further than that. This guy Zemel owns a patent on the claim that dairy foods aid weight loss, which is licensed to dairy food manufacturers. As the Center for Science in the Public Interest noted, "In the world of patents and PR, a little science can go a long way."[4] For an in depth analysis of Zemels work and how it is assisting the Dairy Industry check out the Nutrition Action Health Letter Spetember 2005 available online at cspinet.org
Similar maneuverings were involved in the increased dairy recommendation in the new USDA Dietary Guidelines, even though a recent World Health Organization review found no significant relationship at all between low dairy consumption and osteoporotic fracture risk.[5] Assigned to write the dairy guideline was Connie Weaver, head of nutrition at Purdue University and a funding favorite of the National Dairy Council. Walter Willet, head of nutrition at Harvard, calls the guideline committee's report "egregious," accusing them of ignoring the evidence linking dairy to cancer. "There is no nutritional requirement for dairy," Dr. Willet told the Wall Street Journal, "at all."[6]
To hopefully clear up the dairy/weight question once and for all, on June 6, 2005, Harvard researchers published what may be considered the definitive study on the subject in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. A study which followed the milk-drinking habits of not 11 kids, or even 12 kids, but over 12,000 kids! After following these 9- though 14-year-olds for years, they found that "children who reported higher total milk intake experienced larger weight gains." The more milk they drank, the heavier they became. Boys who drank the "recommended" three servings of milk a day were 35% more likely to become overweight and girls who drank three servings were 36% more likely to become overweight over time.[7]
"Given the high prevalence of lactose intolerance, the energy content and saturated fat in milk, and evidence that dairy products may promote both male (prostate) and female (ovarian) cancers, we should not assume that high intakes [of dairy] are beneficial," the researchers told reporters. "Furthermore, these cancers may be linked to consumption during adolescence."[8]
What most surprised the researchers was that those who drank low-fat milk (skim and 1%) gained the most weight of all! The weight gain seemed tied more to the dairy protein intake than the dairy fat intake (extra whey protein is often added to low-fat milk during processing). Although there are at least four human studies that show that the dairy protein whey itself may promote weight gain, the researchers guessed that the blame lay in the growth hormones in milk, like the sex steroid estrone found in whey. After all, milk is designed by mother nature to start an 80-pound calf on her way to 1,400 pounds by her second birthday.
This new study has serious implications for our childhood obesity epidemic, which not only has devastating health consequences but social consequences as well. A study released the same week by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control found that teens who perceived themselves as overweight were more than twice as likely to attempt suicide.[9]
[1] Barr SI. "Increased Dairy Product or Calcium Intake: Is Body Weight or Composition Affected in Humans?" Journal of Nutrition 133(2003):245-8S.
[2] Obesity Research 12(2004):A23.
[3] Gunther CW, Legowski PA, Lyle RM, et al. "Dairy Products Do Not Lead to Alterations in Body Weight or Fat Mass in Young Women In A 1-Y Intervention." Am J Clin Nutr 2005;81:751-6.
[4] "Dairy Does Diets." Nutrition Action Healthletter September 2004:8.
[5] Kanis JA, et al."A Meta-Analysis of Milk Intake and Fracture Risk: Low Utility For Case Finding." Osteoporisis International 21 October 2004.
[6] Zamiska N. "How Milk Got a Major Boost By Food Panel." Wall Street Journal 30 August 2004:B1.
[7] Berkey CS, et al. "Milk, Dairy Fat, Dietary Calcium, and Weight Gain ." Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 1599(2005):543-50.
[8] Fox M. "Milk may make for heavier kids, study finds." Reuters 6 June 2005.
[9] Eaton DK, et al. "Associations of Body Mass Index and Perceived Weight With Suicide Ideation and Suicide Attempts Among US High School Students." Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 1599(2005):513-9.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
California Dairy Giant Rejects Hormone Treated Milk
Consumer groups and public health organizations give cheers to California’s dairy industry after the Associated Press, along with other news agencies, reported yesterday that members of the largest dairy cooperative in California will be required to supply milk that is free of the hormone RBST. California Dairies Company's 650 members produce approximately 40% of California's milk and 10% of the nation's. By August First, they'll have to stop injecting their herds with the genetically engineered hormone or pay a premium for the co-op to truck their milk to other markets.
The industry wide shockwaves expected will assist in bringing US production regulations closer to that of our trading partners. In Europe and Canada US dairy exports recently have faced increasing resistance because of the refusal by American producers to discontinue using the hormone. European and Canadian authorities banned the hormone, recognize RBST as a threat to human health and have linked it to cancer. Several years ago documents came to public attention that showed Monsanto lied about their studies in order to gain approval from the FDA. The evidence on this is stunning and I have included an exhaustive list of references and hope that everyone gives them at least a quick glance.[1-58]
The good news for the consumers and the cows is not in any case good news for Monsanto, they are going to lose billions of dollars. Monsanto is the only supplier of the hormone, sold under the name Posilac, and sales have been estimated at close to $300 million annually, although Monsanto refuses disclosure of actual figures. Monsanto Corporation, in case anyone has forgotten, is that esteemed member of the American corporate community that has brought us such wonders as Agent Orange, Roundup and is the world's leader in GMO's (genetically modified organism).
RBST or Posilac is also an excellent example of corporate welfare. Posilac causes cows to produce more milk. So... what is wrong with that you ask? American taxpayers pay farmers not to produce milk and have been doing so for years. [59] There is an excess of dairy products in this country and our government buys it using our money. They buy it to keep the prices stable. If the supply exceeds demand, the price of dairy drops. The government steps in and keeps product from reaching the market. It ends up in government warehouses where much of it is simply thrown away. This is where “government cheese” came from. What is not eaten by our poor, elderly, and native populations ends up in the trash. Do you think that Monsanto cares about the fact that their product is contributing to this? I think Monsanto sees the bottom line.
The trouble with this continues because not only has Posilac been recognized as a human health threat, but so is the milk it helps produce more of! Dairy proteins and fats have been linked to heart disease, stroke [60,6], cancer [62-66], diabetes (types 1&2) [67,68], multiple sclerosis, arthritis, Crohn’s disease, irritable bowl syndrome, fibromyalgia, osteoporosis [69-78], and more. So where did Monsanto get the bright idea for such a great product? Since great minds think alike, maybe it was a friend of one of Monsanto’s other top executives; Donald Rumsfeld was a CEO for Monsanto. Hmmmm.
My hat is off to the California dairy producers for standing up to Monsanto and their money grubbing schemes regardless of the reason. It is a rare day when I have anything positive to say about the dairy industry, today just happens to be one of them.
References
1. Conyers, John. Letter to Richard R. Kusserow, Inspector General, Department of
Health and Human Services. May 9, 1990.
2. Kennelly J & DeBoer G. Bovine somatotropin. In Proceedings of the Alberta Dairy Seminar. Banff, Alberta, March 9-11, 1998.
3. Baer RJ, et al. Composition and flavor of milk produced by cows injected with recombinant bovine somatotropin. Journal of Dairy Science 72:1424-1434, 1989.
4. Capuco, AV et al. Somatotropin increases thyroxine-5’-monodeiodinase activity in lactating mammary tissue of the cow. Journal of Endocrinology 121(2):205-211, 1989.
5. Epstein, SS. Potential public health hazards of biosynthetic milk hormones.
International Journal of Health Services 20:73-84, 1990.
6. Kronfeld, DS. Safety of bovine growth hormone. Science 251:256-257, 1991.
7. U.S. General Accounting Office. rBGH. FDA Approval Should Be Withheld Until the Mastitis Issues is Resolved. 1992.
8. Mepham TB. Public health implications of bovine somatotropin use in dairying: discussion paper. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 85:736-739, 1992.
9. Millstone E, et al. Plagiarism or protecting public health? Nature 371:647-648, 1994.
10. U.S. General Accounting Office. Recombinant bovine growth hormone. FDA approval should be withheld until the mastitis issue is resolved. 1992.
11. Davis SR, et al. Effects of injecting growth hormone of thyroxine on milk production and blood plasma concentrations of insulin-like growth factors I and II in dairy cows.
Journal of Endocrinology 114:17-24, 1987.
12. Prosser CG, et al. Changes in concentrations of IGF-1 in milk during BGH treatment in the goat. Journal of Endocrinology 112 (March Supplement): Abstract 65, 1987.
13. McBride BW, et al. The influence of bovine growth hormone (somatotropin) on animals and their products. Research and Development in Agriculture 5:1-21, 1988. page 5
14. Francis GL, et al. Insulin-like growth factors 1 and 2 in bovine colostrum. Sequences and biological activities compared with those of a potent truncated form. Biochem J. 251:95-103, 1988.
15. Prosser CG, et al. Increased secretion of insulin-like growth factor-1 into Milk of cows treated with recombinantly derived bovine growth hormones. Journal of Dairy Research 56:17-26, 1989.
16. Juskevich JC & Guyer CG. Bovine growth hormone food safety evaluation.
Science 249:875-884, 1990.
17. National Institutes of Health. Technology Assessment Conference Statement on
Bovine Somatotropin. Journal of the American Medical Association 265:1423-1425, 1991.
18. Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). Fortieth Report,
Geneva. June 9-18, 1992. Cited six unpublished industry studies confirming increased IGF-1 levels in rBGH milk. These included one by Monsanto (Schams et al, 1988) reporting a four-fold increase, and another (Miller et al, 1989) reporting a further 50% increase following pasteurization.
19. Epstein SS. BST and cancer. New Scientist U.K., October 29, 1994.
20. Mepham TB, et al. Safety of milk from cows treated with bovine somatotropin.
The Lancet 2:197, 1994
21. Mepham TB & Schofield PN. International Dairy Federation Nutrition Week, Paris, June 1995.
22. Epstein SS. Unlabeled milk from cows treated with biosynthetic growth hormones:
a case of regulatory abdication. International Journal of Health Services 261:173-185, 1996.
23. Furlanetto RW & DiCarlo JN. Somatotropin-C receptors and growth effects in human breast cells maintained in long-term tissue culture. Cancer Research 44:2122-2128, 1984.
24. Glimm DR, et al. Effect of bovine somatotropin in the distribution of immunoreactive insulin-like growth factor-1 in lactating bovine mammary tissue.
Journal of Dairy Science 71:2923-2935, 1988.
25. Reynolds RK, et al. Regulation of epidermal growth factor and insulin-like growth factors I receptors by estradiol and progesterone in normal and neoplastic endometrial cells cultures. Gynecology Oncology 38:396-406, 1990. page 6
26. Lippman A. Growth factors, receptors and breast cancer. National Institutes of Health Research 3:59-62, 1991.
27. Rosen N, et al. Insulin-like growth factors in human breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research Treatment 18 (Suppl):555-562, 1991.
28. Harris JR, et al. Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 7:473-480, 1992.
29. Pollak MN, et al. Tamoxifen reduced insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1). Breast Cancer Research Treatment 22:91-100, 1992.
30. Lippman ME. The development of biological therapies for breast cancer. Science 259:631-632, 1993.
31. Pappa V, et al. Insulin-like growth facotr-1 receptors are over expressed and predict a low risk in human breast cancer. Cancer Research 53:3736-3740, 1993.
32. Bruning PF, et al. Insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 3 is decreased in early-stage operable pre-menopausal breast cancer. International Journal of Cancer 62(3):266-270, July 1995.
33. Epstein SS. Unlabeled milk from cows treated with biosynthetic growth hormones: a case of regulatory abdication. International Journal of Health Services 261:173-185, 1996.
34. LeRoith D. Insulin-like growth factors and cancer. Annals of Internal Medicine 122(1):54-59, January, 1995.
35. Bohlke K, et al. Insulin-like growth factor-1 in relation to premenopausal ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Epidemiology 9(5):570-573, 1998.
36. Del Giudice ME, et al. Insulin and related factors in premenopausal breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 47 (2):111-120, 1998.
37. Hankinson SE, et al. Circulating concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-1 and risk of breast cancer. The Lancet 351:1393-1396, 1998.
38. Agurs-Collins T, et al. Insulin-like growth factor-1 and breast cancer risk in post-menopausal American women. Proceedings of the American Association of Cancer Research 40:152, 1999.
39. Toniolo P, et al. Serum insulin-like growth factor-1 and breast cancer.
International Journal of Cancer 88(5):828-832, 2000.
40. Yu H & Rohan T. Role of the insulin-like growth factor family in cancer development and progression. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 92:1472-1484, 2000. page 7
41. Epstein SS. Re Role of the insulin-like growth factors in cancer development and progression. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 93(3):238, 2001.
42. Pines A, et al. Gastrointestinal tumors in acromegalic patients. Am J Gastroenterology 80:266-269, 1985.
43. Orme SM, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality in acromegaly: a retrospective cohort study. Journal of Endocrinology Supplement Number OC22, June 1996.
44. Epstein SS. Unlabeled milk from cows treated with biosynthetic growth hormones: a case of regulatory abdication. International Journal of Health Services 261:173-185, 1996.
45. Manousos O, et al. IGF-I and IGF-II in relation to colorectal cancer. International Journal of Cancer 83:15-17, 1999.
46. Ma J, et al. Prospective study of colorectal cancer risk in men and plasma levels of insulin-like growth factor-1 and IGF-1 binding protein-3. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 91:620-625, 1999.
47. Giovannucci E, et al. Plasma insulin-like growth factor-I and binding protein-3 and risk of colorectal cancer and adenoma in women. Proceedings of the American Association of Cancer Research 40:211, 1999.
48. Renehan AG, et al. Circulating insulin-like growth factor II and colorectal adenomas. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 85(9):3402-3408, 2000.
49. Mantzoros CS, et al. Insulin-like growth factor 1 in relation to prostate cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia. British Journal of Cancer 76:1115-1118, 1997.
50. Chan JM, et al. Plasma insulin-like growth factor-I and prostate cancer risk: a prospective study. Science 279:563-566, 1998.
51. Wolk A, et al. Insulin-like growth factor 1 and prostate cancer risk: a population-based, case-control study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 90:911-915, 1998.
52. Signorello LB, et al. Insulin-like growth factor-binding protein-1 and prostate cancer.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute 91:1965-1967, 1999.
53. Stattin P, et al. Plasma insulin-like growth factor-binding proteins, and prostate
cancer risk: a prospective study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 92:1910-1917, 2000.
54. Harman SM, et al. Serum levels of insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-1), IGF-II, IGF-binding protein-3, and prostate-specific antigen as predictors of clinical prostate cancer.
Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 85(11):4258-4265, 2000. page 8
55. Juul A, et al. The ratio between serum levels of IGF-1 and the IGF binding protein decreases with age in healthy patients and is increased in acromegalic patients. Clinical Endocrinology 41:85-93, 1994.
56. Tremble JM & McGregor AM. In Treating Acromegaly, editor Wass p. 5-12.
Journal of Endocrinology Ltd., Bristol, England, 1994.
57. Resnicoff M, et al. The insulin-like growth factor-I receptor protects tumor cells from apoptosis in vivo. Cancer Research 55(11):2463-2469, June 1,1995.
58. Epstein SS. Re: role of the insulin-like growth factor family in cancer development and progression. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 93(3):238, 2001
59. Milk Pricing in the United States. By Alden C. Manchester and Don P. Blayney.
Market and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 761.
60. Pennington JAT. Bowes and Churches Food Values of Portions Commonly Used, 17th ed. New York: Lippincott, 1998.
61. Ornish D, Brown SE, Scherwitz LW, Billings JH, Armstrong WT, Ports TA. Can lifestyle changes reverse coronary heart disease? Lancet 1990;336:129-33.
62. Cramer DW, Harlow BL, Willet WC. Galactose consumption and metabolism in relation to the risk of ovarian cancer. Lancet 1989;2:66-71.
63. Outwater JL, Nicholson A, Barnard N. Dairy products and breast cancer: the IGF-1, estrogen, and bGH hypothesis. Medical Hypothesis 1997;48:453-61.
64. Chan JM, Stampfer MJ, Giovannucci E, et al. Plasma insulin-like growth factor-1 and prostate cancer risk: a prospective study. Science 1998;279:563-5.
65. World Cancer Research Fund. Food, Nutrition, and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective. American Institute of Cancer Research. Washington, D.C.: 1997.
66. Cadogan J, Eastell R, Jones N, Barker ME. Milk intake and bone mineral acquisition in adolescent girls: randomised, controlled intervention trial. BMJ1997;315:1255-69.
67. Scott FW. Cow milk and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: is there a relationship? Am J Clin Nutr 1990;51:489-91.
68. Karjalainen J, Martin JM, Knip M, et al. A bovine albumin peptide as a possible trigger of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1992;327:302-7.
69. Feskanich D, Willet WC, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA. Milk, dietary calcium, and bone fractures in women: a 12-year prospective study. Am J Public Health 1997;87:992-7.
70. Cumming RG, Klineberg RJ. Case-control study of risk factors for hip fractures in the elderly. Am J Epidemiol 1994;139:493-505.
71. Huang Z, Himes JH, McGovern PG. Nutrition and subsequent hip fracture risk among a national cohort of white women. Am J Epidemiol 1996;144:124-34.
72. Cummings SR, Nevitt MC, Browner WS, et al. Risk factors for hip fracture in white women. N Engl J Med 1995;332:767-73.
73. Finn SC. The skeleton crew: is calcium enough? J Women’s Health 1998;7(1):31-6.
74. Nordin CBE. Calcium and osteoporosis. Nutrition 1997;3(7/8):664-86.
75. Reid DM, New SA. Nutritional influences on bone mass. Proceed Nutr Soc 1997;56:977-87.
76. Tucker KL, Hannan MR, Chen H, Cupples LA, Wilson PWF, Kiel DP. Potassium, magnesium, and fruit and vegetable intakes are associated with greater bone mineral density in elderly men and women. Am J Clin Nutr 1999;69:727-36.
77. Prince R, Devine A, Dick I, et al. The effects of calcium supplementation (milk powder or tablets) and exercise on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women. J Bone Miner Res 1995;10:1068-75.
78. The Cornell-China-Oxford Project. The China Study- Dr. T .Colin Campbell 2006
The industry wide shockwaves expected will assist in bringing US production regulations closer to that of our trading partners. In Europe and Canada US dairy exports recently have faced increasing resistance because of the refusal by American producers to discontinue using the hormone. European and Canadian authorities banned the hormone, recognize RBST as a threat to human health and have linked it to cancer. Several years ago documents came to public attention that showed Monsanto lied about their studies in order to gain approval from the FDA. The evidence on this is stunning and I have included an exhaustive list of references and hope that everyone gives them at least a quick glance.[1-58]
The good news for the consumers and the cows is not in any case good news for Monsanto, they are going to lose billions of dollars. Monsanto is the only supplier of the hormone, sold under the name Posilac, and sales have been estimated at close to $300 million annually, although Monsanto refuses disclosure of actual figures. Monsanto Corporation, in case anyone has forgotten, is that esteemed member of the American corporate community that has brought us such wonders as Agent Orange, Roundup and is the world's leader in GMO's (genetically modified organism).
RBST or Posilac is also an excellent example of corporate welfare. Posilac causes cows to produce more milk. So... what is wrong with that you ask? American taxpayers pay farmers not to produce milk and have been doing so for years. [59] There is an excess of dairy products in this country and our government buys it using our money. They buy it to keep the prices stable. If the supply exceeds demand, the price of dairy drops. The government steps in and keeps product from reaching the market. It ends up in government warehouses where much of it is simply thrown away. This is where “government cheese” came from. What is not eaten by our poor, elderly, and native populations ends up in the trash. Do you think that Monsanto cares about the fact that their product is contributing to this? I think Monsanto sees the bottom line.
The trouble with this continues because not only has Posilac been recognized as a human health threat, but so is the milk it helps produce more of! Dairy proteins and fats have been linked to heart disease, stroke [60,6], cancer [62-66], diabetes (types 1&2) [67,68], multiple sclerosis, arthritis, Crohn’s disease, irritable bowl syndrome, fibromyalgia, osteoporosis [69-78], and more. So where did Monsanto get the bright idea for such a great product? Since great minds think alike, maybe it was a friend of one of Monsanto’s other top executives; Donald Rumsfeld was a CEO for Monsanto. Hmmmm.
My hat is off to the California dairy producers for standing up to Monsanto and their money grubbing schemes regardless of the reason. It is a rare day when I have anything positive to say about the dairy industry, today just happens to be one of them.
References
1. Conyers, John. Letter to Richard R. Kusserow, Inspector General, Department of
Health and Human Services. May 9, 1990.
2. Kennelly J & DeBoer G. Bovine somatotropin. In Proceedings of the Alberta Dairy Seminar. Banff, Alberta, March 9-11, 1998.
3. Baer RJ, et al. Composition and flavor of milk produced by cows injected with recombinant bovine somatotropin. Journal of Dairy Science 72:1424-1434, 1989.
4. Capuco, AV et al. Somatotropin increases thyroxine-5’-monodeiodinase activity in lactating mammary tissue of the cow. Journal of Endocrinology 121(2):205-211, 1989.
5. Epstein, SS. Potential public health hazards of biosynthetic milk hormones.
International Journal of Health Services 20:73-84, 1990.
6. Kronfeld, DS. Safety of bovine growth hormone. Science 251:256-257, 1991.
7. U.S. General Accounting Office. rBGH. FDA Approval Should Be Withheld Until the Mastitis Issues is Resolved. 1992.
8. Mepham TB. Public health implications of bovine somatotropin use in dairying: discussion paper. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 85:736-739, 1992.
9. Millstone E, et al. Plagiarism or protecting public health? Nature 371:647-648, 1994.
10. U.S. General Accounting Office. Recombinant bovine growth hormone. FDA approval should be withheld until the mastitis issue is resolved. 1992.
11. Davis SR, et al. Effects of injecting growth hormone of thyroxine on milk production and blood plasma concentrations of insulin-like growth factors I and II in dairy cows.
Journal of Endocrinology 114:17-24, 1987.
12. Prosser CG, et al. Changes in concentrations of IGF-1 in milk during BGH treatment in the goat. Journal of Endocrinology 112 (March Supplement): Abstract 65, 1987.
13. McBride BW, et al. The influence of bovine growth hormone (somatotropin) on animals and their products. Research and Development in Agriculture 5:1-21, 1988. page 5
14. Francis GL, et al. Insulin-like growth factors 1 and 2 in bovine colostrum. Sequences and biological activities compared with those of a potent truncated form. Biochem J. 251:95-103, 1988.
15. Prosser CG, et al. Increased secretion of insulin-like growth factor-1 into Milk of cows treated with recombinantly derived bovine growth hormones. Journal of Dairy Research 56:17-26, 1989.
16. Juskevich JC & Guyer CG. Bovine growth hormone food safety evaluation.
Science 249:875-884, 1990.
17. National Institutes of Health. Technology Assessment Conference Statement on
Bovine Somatotropin. Journal of the American Medical Association 265:1423-1425, 1991.
18. Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). Fortieth Report,
Geneva. June 9-18, 1992. Cited six unpublished industry studies confirming increased IGF-1 levels in rBGH milk. These included one by Monsanto (Schams et al, 1988) reporting a four-fold increase, and another (Miller et al, 1989) reporting a further 50% increase following pasteurization.
19. Epstein SS. BST and cancer. New Scientist U.K., October 29, 1994.
20. Mepham TB, et al. Safety of milk from cows treated with bovine somatotropin.
The Lancet 2:197, 1994
21. Mepham TB & Schofield PN. International Dairy Federation Nutrition Week, Paris, June 1995.
22. Epstein SS. Unlabeled milk from cows treated with biosynthetic growth hormones:
a case of regulatory abdication. International Journal of Health Services 261:173-185, 1996.
23. Furlanetto RW & DiCarlo JN. Somatotropin-C receptors and growth effects in human breast cells maintained in long-term tissue culture. Cancer Research 44:2122-2128, 1984.
24. Glimm DR, et al. Effect of bovine somatotropin in the distribution of immunoreactive insulin-like growth factor-1 in lactating bovine mammary tissue.
Journal of Dairy Science 71:2923-2935, 1988.
25. Reynolds RK, et al. Regulation of epidermal growth factor and insulin-like growth factors I receptors by estradiol and progesterone in normal and neoplastic endometrial cells cultures. Gynecology Oncology 38:396-406, 1990. page 6
26. Lippman A. Growth factors, receptors and breast cancer. National Institutes of Health Research 3:59-62, 1991.
27. Rosen N, et al. Insulin-like growth factors in human breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research Treatment 18 (Suppl):555-562, 1991.
28. Harris JR, et al. Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 7:473-480, 1992.
29. Pollak MN, et al. Tamoxifen reduced insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1). Breast Cancer Research Treatment 22:91-100, 1992.
30. Lippman ME. The development of biological therapies for breast cancer. Science 259:631-632, 1993.
31. Pappa V, et al. Insulin-like growth facotr-1 receptors are over expressed and predict a low risk in human breast cancer. Cancer Research 53:3736-3740, 1993.
32. Bruning PF, et al. Insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 3 is decreased in early-stage operable pre-menopausal breast cancer. International Journal of Cancer 62(3):266-270, July 1995.
33. Epstein SS. Unlabeled milk from cows treated with biosynthetic growth hormones: a case of regulatory abdication. International Journal of Health Services 261:173-185, 1996.
34. LeRoith D. Insulin-like growth factors and cancer. Annals of Internal Medicine 122(1):54-59, January, 1995.
35. Bohlke K, et al. Insulin-like growth factor-1 in relation to premenopausal ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Epidemiology 9(5):570-573, 1998.
36. Del Giudice ME, et al. Insulin and related factors in premenopausal breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 47 (2):111-120, 1998.
37. Hankinson SE, et al. Circulating concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-1 and risk of breast cancer. The Lancet 351:1393-1396, 1998.
38. Agurs-Collins T, et al. Insulin-like growth factor-1 and breast cancer risk in post-menopausal American women. Proceedings of the American Association of Cancer Research 40:152, 1999.
39. Toniolo P, et al. Serum insulin-like growth factor-1 and breast cancer.
International Journal of Cancer 88(5):828-832, 2000.
40. Yu H & Rohan T. Role of the insulin-like growth factor family in cancer development and progression. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 92:1472-1484, 2000. page 7
41. Epstein SS. Re Role of the insulin-like growth factors in cancer development and progression. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 93(3):238, 2001.
42. Pines A, et al. Gastrointestinal tumors in acromegalic patients. Am J Gastroenterology 80:266-269, 1985.
43. Orme SM, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality in acromegaly: a retrospective cohort study. Journal of Endocrinology Supplement Number OC22, June 1996.
44. Epstein SS. Unlabeled milk from cows treated with biosynthetic growth hormones: a case of regulatory abdication. International Journal of Health Services 261:173-185, 1996.
45. Manousos O, et al. IGF-I and IGF-II in relation to colorectal cancer. International Journal of Cancer 83:15-17, 1999.
46. Ma J, et al. Prospective study of colorectal cancer risk in men and plasma levels of insulin-like growth factor-1 and IGF-1 binding protein-3. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 91:620-625, 1999.
47. Giovannucci E, et al. Plasma insulin-like growth factor-I and binding protein-3 and risk of colorectal cancer and adenoma in women. Proceedings of the American Association of Cancer Research 40:211, 1999.
48. Renehan AG, et al. Circulating insulin-like growth factor II and colorectal adenomas. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 85(9):3402-3408, 2000.
49. Mantzoros CS, et al. Insulin-like growth factor 1 in relation to prostate cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia. British Journal of Cancer 76:1115-1118, 1997.
50. Chan JM, et al. Plasma insulin-like growth factor-I and prostate cancer risk: a prospective study. Science 279:563-566, 1998.
51. Wolk A, et al. Insulin-like growth factor 1 and prostate cancer risk: a population-based, case-control study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 90:911-915, 1998.
52. Signorello LB, et al. Insulin-like growth factor-binding protein-1 and prostate cancer.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute 91:1965-1967, 1999.
53. Stattin P, et al. Plasma insulin-like growth factor-binding proteins, and prostate
cancer risk: a prospective study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 92:1910-1917, 2000.
54. Harman SM, et al. Serum levels of insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-1), IGF-II, IGF-binding protein-3, and prostate-specific antigen as predictors of clinical prostate cancer.
Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 85(11):4258-4265, 2000. page 8
55. Juul A, et al. The ratio between serum levels of IGF-1 and the IGF binding protein decreases with age in healthy patients and is increased in acromegalic patients. Clinical Endocrinology 41:85-93, 1994.
56. Tremble JM & McGregor AM. In Treating Acromegaly, editor Wass p. 5-12.
Journal of Endocrinology Ltd., Bristol, England, 1994.
57. Resnicoff M, et al. The insulin-like growth factor-I receptor protects tumor cells from apoptosis in vivo. Cancer Research 55(11):2463-2469, June 1,1995.
58. Epstein SS. Re: role of the insulin-like growth factor family in cancer development and progression. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 93(3):238, 2001
59. Milk Pricing in the United States. By Alden C. Manchester and Don P. Blayney.
Market and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 761.
60. Pennington JAT. Bowes and Churches Food Values of Portions Commonly Used, 17th ed. New York: Lippincott, 1998.
61. Ornish D, Brown SE, Scherwitz LW, Billings JH, Armstrong WT, Ports TA. Can lifestyle changes reverse coronary heart disease? Lancet 1990;336:129-33.
62. Cramer DW, Harlow BL, Willet WC. Galactose consumption and metabolism in relation to the risk of ovarian cancer. Lancet 1989;2:66-71.
63. Outwater JL, Nicholson A, Barnard N. Dairy products and breast cancer: the IGF-1, estrogen, and bGH hypothesis. Medical Hypothesis 1997;48:453-61.
64. Chan JM, Stampfer MJ, Giovannucci E, et al. Plasma insulin-like growth factor-1 and prostate cancer risk: a prospective study. Science 1998;279:563-5.
65. World Cancer Research Fund. Food, Nutrition, and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective. American Institute of Cancer Research. Washington, D.C.: 1997.
66. Cadogan J, Eastell R, Jones N, Barker ME. Milk intake and bone mineral acquisition in adolescent girls: randomised, controlled intervention trial. BMJ1997;315:1255-69.
67. Scott FW. Cow milk and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: is there a relationship? Am J Clin Nutr 1990;51:489-91.
68. Karjalainen J, Martin JM, Knip M, et al. A bovine albumin peptide as a possible trigger of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1992;327:302-7.
69. Feskanich D, Willet WC, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA. Milk, dietary calcium, and bone fractures in women: a 12-year prospective study. Am J Public Health 1997;87:992-7.
70. Cumming RG, Klineberg RJ. Case-control study of risk factors for hip fractures in the elderly. Am J Epidemiol 1994;139:493-505.
71. Huang Z, Himes JH, McGovern PG. Nutrition and subsequent hip fracture risk among a national cohort of white women. Am J Epidemiol 1996;144:124-34.
72. Cummings SR, Nevitt MC, Browner WS, et al. Risk factors for hip fracture in white women. N Engl J Med 1995;332:767-73.
73. Finn SC. The skeleton crew: is calcium enough? J Women’s Health 1998;7(1):31-6.
74. Nordin CBE. Calcium and osteoporosis. Nutrition 1997;3(7/8):664-86.
75. Reid DM, New SA. Nutritional influences on bone mass. Proceed Nutr Soc 1997;56:977-87.
76. Tucker KL, Hannan MR, Chen H, Cupples LA, Wilson PWF, Kiel DP. Potassium, magnesium, and fruit and vegetable intakes are associated with greater bone mineral density in elderly men and women. Am J Clin Nutr 1999;69:727-36.
77. Prince R, Devine A, Dick I, et al. The effects of calcium supplementation (milk powder or tablets) and exercise on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women. J Bone Miner Res 1995;10:1068-75.
78. The Cornell-China-Oxford Project. The China Study- Dr. T .Colin Campbell 2006
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Fish During Pregnancy Places 600,000 American Children At Risk for Lowered IQ and Learning Disabilities
Fish Contamination, Pregnancy and Cognitive Development
Each year in the U.S., up to 600,000 children are born at risk for lower intelligence and learning problems due to mercury exposure because their mothers ate fish. That's the number of children the Environmental Protection Agency estimated to be at risk in an analysis published last month using data from the Centers for Disease Control. This is double the Agency's previous estimate.[1]
This study follows on the heels of the joint FDA/EPA advisory in March, which warned young children, pregnant and breast-feeding women, or even women just planning to get pregnant to severely limit the consumption of many types of fish like canned tuna, and to stay away from some fish completely, like swordfish, mackerel, etc. Still, many scientists didn't think the advisory went far enough.
After learning that the FDA was going to "disregard" science[2] and allow women to eat a whole can of albacore tuna once a week, one leading FDA advisory panel expert resigned in protest. University of Arizona toxicologist Vas Aposhian said the advisory should have put more stringent limits on all canned tuna and warned women who might get pregnant to avoid albacore tuna entirely, claiming that "The new recommendations are dangerous to 99 percent of pregnant women and their unborn children.[3] "It seems that one should be more concerned about the health of the future children of this country," he said, "than the albacore tuna industry.".[4]
The hundreds of thousands of babies born every year in the U.S. to the one in six women with enough mercury in their blood to put their babies at risk suffer most often subtle losses in potential. Although mercury can cause irreparable damage to the human central nervous system and has been found to deform fetuses, more often, "It might reduce IQ by a few points," says Dr. Michael Gochfeld, chairman of New Jersey's mercury task force. "It might reduce motor coordination, so that this child is someone we think of as a klutz. It might make them unmusical."[5]
Studies have shown that children born to mothers who ate a lot of fish were slower to talk, walk and develop fine motor skills and have weaker memories and attention spans. And the brain damage is apparently permanent. Follow-up studies over a decade later showed that their brains had not recovered.
The tuna industry feels that tuna is being unfairly singled out and is quick to point out that "almost all ocean fish and seafood naturally contain trace levels of mercury."[6] One such leading "natural" source is the smoke that pours from coal-burning plants across the U.S. And this past Earth Day it was the coal and power industry executives that were celebrating.
Lost in Bush's "war on terror" is Bush's war on the Clean Air Act. As part of Bush's "Clear Skies Initiative," the Bush White House proposes to weaken and delay efforts to clean up mercury emissions from America's power stations, thus saving millions for their corporate campaign contributors. The energy industry alone contributed $40 million to Republican election campaigns, including $1.3 million directly to Bush. And they got their money's worth.
Last December as the EPA signed the first proposal ever to cut mercury emissions from coal plants, Bush was busy proposing mercury be delisted as a toxic air pollutant. The EPA was hoping to cut mercury emissions 90% by 2008. Bush had a better idea--how about 70% by 2018? Bush's plan would also allow coal plants to buy and sell pollution credits; in other words, bigger plants could buy the right to continue emitting mercury.
At the same time, Bush is applauding Congress for passing the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which makes harm to a fetus a federal crime separate from harm to the mother. Of course Bush's "Clear Skies Initiative" is going to mean harm for both.
We have until June 29th to make our voices heard. Go to http://www.epa.gov/air/mercuryrule/ to submit comments to the EPA about their proposed Utility Mercury Reductions Rule.
On a personal level, people can reduce their exposure to mercury by not eating fish. In a recent public relations blitz, Chicken of the Sea International was quick to point out the heart-healthy benefits of the omega 3's found in fish. Thankfully people don't need to choose between mercury poisoning or heart disease.
For adults, mercury overload from eating fish can cause fatigue and memory loss--something clinicians often call "fish fog". Mercury poisons the heart and may double one's risk of dying from a heart attack. In fact, the mercury contamination in fish and fish oil may be so extensive that some recent data suggests that it may cancel out the benefits of the omega 3's in the fish. There are a number of studies, for example, showing increased mortality among fish-eaters, which we think is from the toxic mercury. Thankfully, plant-based sources of omega 3's provide a safe and healthy alternative.
Our bodies convert some of the short chain omega 3's found in flax seeds, for example, into the long chain omega 3's found in fish fat, so one can choose to get omega 3's packaged with soluble fiber and antioxidants in flax, rather than getting them packaged with heavy metals and carcinogens in fish. Many Doctors recommend everyone eat 2 tablespoons of ground flax seeds a day (thorough chewing works well also).
For those who want to take supplemental long chain omega 3's directly, but don't want to be exposed to the high concentrations of PCBs and pesticides in fish oil capsules,[7] there are at least two vegan algae-based contamination-free supplements in veggie-caps currently on the market.
[1] Environmental Health Perspectives 112(April 2004).
[2] Connecticut Post (Bridgeport, CT). March 20, 2004.
[3] The Boston Globe. March 20, 2004.
[4] USA TODAY. March 22, 2004.
[5] Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Wisconsin). April 12, 2004.
[6] Greenwire. March 22, 2004.
[7] Times Newspapers Limited, January 11, 2004
Each year in the U.S., up to 600,000 children are born at risk for lower intelligence and learning problems due to mercury exposure because their mothers ate fish. That's the number of children the Environmental Protection Agency estimated to be at risk in an analysis published last month using data from the Centers for Disease Control. This is double the Agency's previous estimate.[1]
This study follows on the heels of the joint FDA/EPA advisory in March, which warned young children, pregnant and breast-feeding women, or even women just planning to get pregnant to severely limit the consumption of many types of fish like canned tuna, and to stay away from some fish completely, like swordfish, mackerel, etc. Still, many scientists didn't think the advisory went far enough.
After learning that the FDA was going to "disregard" science[2] and allow women to eat a whole can of albacore tuna once a week, one leading FDA advisory panel expert resigned in protest. University of Arizona toxicologist Vas Aposhian said the advisory should have put more stringent limits on all canned tuna and warned women who might get pregnant to avoid albacore tuna entirely, claiming that "The new recommendations are dangerous to 99 percent of pregnant women and their unborn children.[3] "It seems that one should be more concerned about the health of the future children of this country," he said, "than the albacore tuna industry.".[4]
The hundreds of thousands of babies born every year in the U.S. to the one in six women with enough mercury in their blood to put their babies at risk suffer most often subtle losses in potential. Although mercury can cause irreparable damage to the human central nervous system and has been found to deform fetuses, more often, "It might reduce IQ by a few points," says Dr. Michael Gochfeld, chairman of New Jersey's mercury task force. "It might reduce motor coordination, so that this child is someone we think of as a klutz. It might make them unmusical."[5]
Studies have shown that children born to mothers who ate a lot of fish were slower to talk, walk and develop fine motor skills and have weaker memories and attention spans. And the brain damage is apparently permanent. Follow-up studies over a decade later showed that their brains had not recovered.
The tuna industry feels that tuna is being unfairly singled out and is quick to point out that "almost all ocean fish and seafood naturally contain trace levels of mercury."[6] One such leading "natural" source is the smoke that pours from coal-burning plants across the U.S. And this past Earth Day it was the coal and power industry executives that were celebrating.
Lost in Bush's "war on terror" is Bush's war on the Clean Air Act. As part of Bush's "Clear Skies Initiative," the Bush White House proposes to weaken and delay efforts to clean up mercury emissions from America's power stations, thus saving millions for their corporate campaign contributors. The energy industry alone contributed $40 million to Republican election campaigns, including $1.3 million directly to Bush. And they got their money's worth.
Last December as the EPA signed the first proposal ever to cut mercury emissions from coal plants, Bush was busy proposing mercury be delisted as a toxic air pollutant. The EPA was hoping to cut mercury emissions 90% by 2008. Bush had a better idea--how about 70% by 2018? Bush's plan would also allow coal plants to buy and sell pollution credits; in other words, bigger plants could buy the right to continue emitting mercury.
At the same time, Bush is applauding Congress for passing the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which makes harm to a fetus a federal crime separate from harm to the mother. Of course Bush's "Clear Skies Initiative" is going to mean harm for both.
We have until June 29th to make our voices heard. Go to http://www.epa.gov/air/mercuryrule/ to submit comments to the EPA about their proposed Utility Mercury Reductions Rule.
On a personal level, people can reduce their exposure to mercury by not eating fish. In a recent public relations blitz, Chicken of the Sea International was quick to point out the heart-healthy benefits of the omega 3's found in fish. Thankfully people don't need to choose between mercury poisoning or heart disease.
For adults, mercury overload from eating fish can cause fatigue and memory loss--something clinicians often call "fish fog". Mercury poisons the heart and may double one's risk of dying from a heart attack. In fact, the mercury contamination in fish and fish oil may be so extensive that some recent data suggests that it may cancel out the benefits of the omega 3's in the fish. There are a number of studies, for example, showing increased mortality among fish-eaters, which we think is from the toxic mercury. Thankfully, plant-based sources of omega 3's provide a safe and healthy alternative.
Our bodies convert some of the short chain omega 3's found in flax seeds, for example, into the long chain omega 3's found in fish fat, so one can choose to get omega 3's packaged with soluble fiber and antioxidants in flax, rather than getting them packaged with heavy metals and carcinogens in fish. Many Doctors recommend everyone eat 2 tablespoons of ground flax seeds a day (thorough chewing works well also).
For those who want to take supplemental long chain omega 3's directly, but don't want to be exposed to the high concentrations of PCBs and pesticides in fish oil capsules,[7] there are at least two vegan algae-based contamination-free supplements in veggie-caps currently on the market.
[1] Environmental Health Perspectives 112(April 2004).
[2] Connecticut Post (Bridgeport, CT). March 20, 2004.
[3] The Boston Globe. March 20, 2004.
[4] USA TODAY. March 22, 2004.
[5] Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Wisconsin). April 12, 2004.
[6] Greenwire. March 22, 2004.
[7] Times Newspapers Limited, January 11, 2004
Rocket Fuel in Milk Could Harm Children
Rocket Fuel in Milk
The headline in the San Francisco Chronicle pretty much summed it up: "Rocket fuel found in milk in California: Not clear if amount imperils children."[1]
For decades the Pentagon has been contaminating the drinking water of hundreds of U.S. communities across at least 43 states with ammonium perchlorate, the main explosive component of solid missile fuel.[2]Utah, where NASA and the military test their rockets, recently saw a local news broadcast wherein grocery store milk samples were randomly tested and all turned up alarming levels of perchlorate. Not surprisingly, the Bush Administration, despite the fact that every milk sample taken in Bush's home state of Texas was also found to be perchlorate contaminated,[3] attempted once again this year[4] to exempt chemical companies and military contractors like Lockheed Martin and Morton Thiokol from cleaning up this toxic waste which, as Senator Barbara Boxer noted, is "endangering the health of millions of Americans."[5]
Perchlorate leaches into the irrigation water used to grow feed crops for cattle who can then concentrate this agent into their milk. Testing milk off California grocery store shelves for the first time, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) recently found that infants and children may be exposed to more of this toxic chemical than is considered safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)[6] and other independent scientific bodies.[7] The average 1-year-old in Southern California, for example, is estimated to be getting twice the EPA's "provisional daily safe dose." The EWG also unearthed previously unreleased tests done by the California Food and Agriculture Department that found an average level of perchlorate contamination in California milk over 5 times the EPA safety standard. Cheese, yogurt and other dairy products are likely to be as contaminated as milk.[8]
Scientists know that at the levels that were found in milk, perchlorate can affect a baby's ability to make essential thyroid hormones.[9,10] What we don't know is if the disruptions in thyroid hormone levels caused by milk would be enough to cause the lowered IQ, mental retardation, loss of hearing and speech, and motor skill deficits seen in thyroid deficient fetuses, infants, and children.
The spokesperson for the state's $4.5 billion dairy industry agrees with the California Ag department that there is a "paucity of science" as to the potential effects of children drinking rocket fuel chemicals.[11]Government and industry both admit, though, that there could be some risk, but that moms and kids should NOT stop drinking milk because of all its "calcium, protein and minerals."[12] Is that the choice our children get? Rocket fuel or malnutrition? Pouring fortified SOY milk on one's cereal, kids can get comparable amounts of protein and calcium and even more minerals--without the toxic waste.Rice milk, almond milk, oatmilk, hazelnut milk and soy, are available in stores everywhere. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out the healthier choice.
1 San Francisco Chronicle 22 June 2004.
2 http://www.ewg.org/issues/perchlorate/20030715/index.php
3 http://www.ewg.org/issues/perchlorate/20030919/index.php
4 http://www.ewg.org/issues/perchlorate/20040420/index.php
5 http://www.ewg.org/issues/perchlorate/20030401/index.php
6 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Perchlorate Environmental Contamination. NCEA-1-0503.
7 Massachusetts Department Of Environmental Protection (MADEP). 2004a. Perchlorate Toxicological Profile And Health Assessment (Final Draft). Office of Research and Standards. May 2004. Available at http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/dws/percinfo.htm
8 Los Angeles Times 22 June 2004
9 Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 42(2000):777.
10 [24] Schwartz, J. 2001. Gestational exposure to perchlorate is associated with measures of decreased thyroid function in a population of California neonates [thesis]. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
11 Associated Press 22 June 2004.
12 Los Angeles Times 22 June 2004.
The headline in the San Francisco Chronicle pretty much summed it up: "Rocket fuel found in milk in California: Not clear if amount imperils children."[1]
For decades the Pentagon has been contaminating the drinking water of hundreds of U.S. communities across at least 43 states with ammonium perchlorate, the main explosive component of solid missile fuel.[2]Utah, where NASA and the military test their rockets, recently saw a local news broadcast wherein grocery store milk samples were randomly tested and all turned up alarming levels of perchlorate. Not surprisingly, the Bush Administration, despite the fact that every milk sample taken in Bush's home state of Texas was also found to be perchlorate contaminated,[3] attempted once again this year[4] to exempt chemical companies and military contractors like Lockheed Martin and Morton Thiokol from cleaning up this toxic waste which, as Senator Barbara Boxer noted, is "endangering the health of millions of Americans."[5]
Perchlorate leaches into the irrigation water used to grow feed crops for cattle who can then concentrate this agent into their milk. Testing milk off California grocery store shelves for the first time, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) recently found that infants and children may be exposed to more of this toxic chemical than is considered safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)[6] and other independent scientific bodies.[7] The average 1-year-old in Southern California, for example, is estimated to be getting twice the EPA's "provisional daily safe dose." The EWG also unearthed previously unreleased tests done by the California Food and Agriculture Department that found an average level of perchlorate contamination in California milk over 5 times the EPA safety standard. Cheese, yogurt and other dairy products are likely to be as contaminated as milk.[8]
Scientists know that at the levels that were found in milk, perchlorate can affect a baby's ability to make essential thyroid hormones.[9,10] What we don't know is if the disruptions in thyroid hormone levels caused by milk would be enough to cause the lowered IQ, mental retardation, loss of hearing and speech, and motor skill deficits seen in thyroid deficient fetuses, infants, and children.
The spokesperson for the state's $4.5 billion dairy industry agrees with the California Ag department that there is a "paucity of science" as to the potential effects of children drinking rocket fuel chemicals.[11]Government and industry both admit, though, that there could be some risk, but that moms and kids should NOT stop drinking milk because of all its "calcium, protein and minerals."[12] Is that the choice our children get? Rocket fuel or malnutrition? Pouring fortified SOY milk on one's cereal, kids can get comparable amounts of protein and calcium and even more minerals--without the toxic waste.Rice milk, almond milk, oatmilk, hazelnut milk and soy, are available in stores everywhere. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out the healthier choice.
1 San Francisco Chronicle 22 June 2004.
2 http://www.ewg.org/issues/perchlorate/20030715/index.php
3 http://www.ewg.org/issues/perchlorate/20030919/index.php
4 http://www.ewg.org/issues/perchlorate/20040420/index.php
5 http://www.ewg.org/issues/perchlorate/20030401/index.php
6 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Perchlorate Environmental Contamination. NCEA-1-0503.
7 Massachusetts Department Of Environmental Protection (MADEP). 2004a. Perchlorate Toxicological Profile And Health Assessment (Final Draft). Office of Research and Standards. May 2004. Available at http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/dws/percinfo.htm
8 Los Angeles Times 22 June 2004
9 Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 42(2000):777.
10 [24] Schwartz, J. 2001. Gestational exposure to perchlorate is associated with measures of decreased thyroid function in a population of California neonates [thesis]. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
11 Associated Press 22 June 2004.
12 Los Angeles Times 22 June 2004.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
