|
|
|
FOOD AND BIOTECHNOLOGY "Biotechnology covers a vast array of techniques and processes that will have profound effects on crops, livestock, feed, and food. Manipulations include gene splicing, recombinant DNA technology, molecular biology, protein purification and sequencing, protein engineering, animal and plant cell culture, root culture, monoclonal antibody technology, and cell fusion techniques. . . . "Insertion of foreign genes into plants and animals intended for human food may create problems for humans. . . . For individuals with food intolerances, it will become difficult to know the components of basic foods. For example, a peanut gene might be inserted into a vegetable, flounder into a tomato, wax moth into potato, firefly into corn, or Brazil nut into soybean. For individuals on rotation diets, not knowing what genes have been inserted, it would be impossible to classify foods."1 Recombinant DNA-derived proteins have been developed in attempts to increase the milk production of cows and reduce the fat in swine. The latter protein, the porcine growth hormone, "has resulted in test pigs suffering from gastric ulcers, arthritis, cardiomegaly [enlarged heart], dermatitis, degenerative bone disease, renal disease, and infertility. Similar effects have been noted in treated test sheep and mice."1
On the subject of increasing milk production, the cow's own "Bovine Growth Hormone, n-BGH, is a natural protein hormone that controls bovine growth and lactation. Synthetic Bovine Growth Hormones, s-BGH, are manufactured by bacterial genetic engineering by the Agricultural Chemicals Division of Eli Lilly and Company (Elanco), in conjunction with the Dow Chemical Company, the Upjohn Company, American Cyanamid, and Monsanto. "[In 1986], the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of s-BGH in large scale productivity trials, and also the sale to the public of unlabelled milk and meat from these trials. . . . The data on which the FDA review and approval process is based have been generated and interpreted exclusively by industry, and by its academic contractees and consultants in some 22 United States university dairy science departments, to the exclusion of any input by independent scientists.<170>2 In the past for other products, "there is fully documented evidence that the data base [used by] these industries and their indentured academics has been . . . highly unreliable, reflecting manipulation, suppression, distortion, and destruction of data with regard to a wide range of products including animal feed additives and drugs, pesticides, detergents, plastics, and other chemicals."2 In spite of claims of 10-25 percent increases in milk production from cows treated with s-BGH, actually the results have been exceedingly variable--sometimes higher, but sometimes even lower than before treatment. Synthetic bovine growth hormone differs significantly from the natural hormone. It contains more amino groups. Also, it "is synthesized on a bacterial rather than a mammalian ribosome and its bacterial links have not been clipped off."2 Although required by law, there is, at present, no test procedure that can detect this animal drug and distinguish it from the natural hormone in the blood or milk of cows.
"Test cows treated with s-BGH develop . . . immune suppression, reduced fertility, heat intolerance, and activation of latent viruses that increase susceptibility to other infectious agents. Levels of such viruses in hormonally-treated milk and their human infectivity need investigation."1 "Biosynthetic milk hormones induce a prolonged negative energy balance, similar to that in the rising phase of lactation, for at least eight weeks, during which increased milk production is paralleled by reduced total body fat, excessive tissue loss, and overgrowth of foregut tissue. This sustained negative energy balance appears to be associated with increased stress, susceptibility to infectious disease, and measurable changes in the composition of milk."2 Hormonal milk has up to 27 percent higher fat levels and the proportion of long-chain saturated fatty acids is increased relative to medium- and short-chain saturated fatty acids. "The fat and milk of cattle are contaminated with a wide range of carcinogens [and neurotoxins, etc.], including pesticides such as heptachlor epoxide and dieldrin and xenobiotics such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and tetrachlorodibenzodioxin.3 The lipolytic [fat-decomposing] effect of hormonal treatment is likely to mobilize carcinogens from body fat and increase their milk levels, a matter of particular concern to young infants. For these reasons, possible incremental levels of fat-soluble carcinogens in hormonal milk should be determined."2 "The increased incidence of infectious diseases, which has been noted in efficacy trials and which is presumably stress induced, is likely to result in increased antibiotic treatment and antibiotic levels in milk."2 As we know from the NOHA lecture, "Beyond Antibiotics," any further use of antibiotics results in further development of antibiotic resistance in the infectious agents so that the antibiotics become ineffective for us, not just for the animals.
"One notable change [in milk from s-BGH treated cows] is the increase of a protein, an insulin-like growth factor, IGF-1, which is a mediator of growth hormone action. IGF-1 is not species specific. The structure of both human and bovine IGF-1 have identical amino acid sequences, and IGF-1 from either species is active in the other species. "IGF-1 is found in somewhat higher concentrations in milk from [hormone]-treated cows than from untreated ones.. Because these hormones are digested in the normal gastrointestinal tract and do not go into the bloodstream when ingested, it is assumed that they do not have biological significance. However, this may not be true for those with impaired gastrointestinal tracts. "Infants can absorb small amounts of protein into their bloodstreams. Infants, either breastfed or bottle fed, are exposed to trace amounts of IGF-1. Questions remain. Can levels, even at trace amounts, exert biological activity? Would the breastfed infant be at risk if the lactating mother consumes s-BGH-treated foods? "Pasteurization inactivates most of the s-BGH in milk, but has little or no effect on IGF-1. The process used to manufacture infant feeding formulas is reported to inactivate approximately 90 percent of the IGF-1 so that only one tenth of the original amount remains in the formulas. Is this amount still sufficient to provoke a reaction in a sensitive infant? This question has not been answered. Other questions concern mature humans. Does the extra load of IGF-1 in milk from treated cows exert local effects on the upper gastrointestinal tract? What is its action on the gut wall for older persons? If IGF-1 in milk helps maturation in the young, will it hasten senescence at a later stage of life?"1 "Elsewhere, Great Britain's Veterinary Products Committee in 1990 rejected Monsanto's application to sell bovine somatotropin [another name for s-BGH] in Great Britain. Bovine somatotropin was banned, too, in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, and parts of Canada, for various reasons, including economics, animal health, and safety. As recently as July 1993, the Commission of the European Community recommended to the European Parliament that the current moratorium on the marketing and use of bovine somatotropin be continued for another seven years. No logical basis could be found at this time to allow marketing and use of bovine somatotropin"1. On November 5, 1993, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the commercial sale and use of s-BGH. Milk and dairy products from treated cows will be in stores, restaurants, and school cafeterias starting February 3,1994. The FDA will not require labels on milk, meat, or dairy products from treated cows. The FDA approved of food irratiation without labelling. Public pressure caused them to reverse their position. In the case of s-BGH with so many public health questions unanswered, we can at least pressure the FDA to require labelling ____________ Article from NOHA NEWS, Vol. XIX, No. 1, Winter 1994, pages 4-5.
|