Don't you just hate it when facts get in the way of a an otherwise good story?
Bovine somatotropin (abbreviated bST and BST) is a protein hormone produced in the pituitary glands of cattle. It is also called bovine growth hormone, or BGH.
A cow's pituitary gland naturally secretes BST into the bloodstream.
Studies have shown that there is no increase in the amount of BST secreted in the milk when a cow is injected with supplemental rBST.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin
In the decade following, rbST was studied
extensively. By 1993, more than
1,500 studies, books, professional papers,
and surveys examined rbST and its implications.
Virtually all scientific studies
determined that rbST posed no danger to
human consumption (Executive Branch).
Backed by overwhelming scientific opinion
that rbST was safe for human consumption,
FDA approved general use of
rbST in November 1993.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AIB747/aib74701.pdf
The FDA's review of rbGH has been scrutinized by both the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General (OIG) and by GAO, as well as by JECFA. On February21, 1992, the OIG announced that an audit of issues related to FDA's review of rbGH found no evidence to question FDA's process for determining the human food safety of rbGH. The OIG found that sufficient research had been conducted to substantiate the safety of the milk and meat of rbGH-treated cows for human consumption. In addition, the OIG found no evidence that indicated that FDA or Monsanto engaged in manipulation or suppression of animal health test data. As noted above, the August 6, 1992 GAO report found that FDA's review of rbGH had met all established guidelines and concluded that bovine growth hormone did not pose a risk for human consumption. In its reviews, JECFA also came to the conclusion that rbGH can be used without any appreciable risk to the health of consumers.
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/RBRPTFNL.htm
IGF-1 is structurally similar to insulin and, like insulin, is not biological effective following oral administration.
The safety of IGF-I in milk was thoroughly considered by FDA in its review of the Posilac application.
Since making that analysis, however, FDA has received and reviewed several more comprehensive studies designed to ascertain the effect of rbGH treatment on milk IGF-I levels. These studies have demonstrated that the levels of IGF-I found in milk from treated cows are within the range of those normally found in milk from untreated cows. In 1993, the JECFA Committee concluded, "the most definitive and comprehensive studies demonstrate that IGF-I concentrations [in milk] are not altered after rbGH treatment". The 1998 JECFA Committee report summarized a study showing no significant difference in commercially available milk labeled as coming from non-rbGH treated cows and milk from cows presumed to be treated with rbGH but not labeled as to treatment.
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/RBRPTFNL.htm
It bears repeating that the assumptions that milk levels of IGF-I are increased following treatment with rbGH and that biologically active IGF-I is absorbed into the body are not supported by the main body of science. Careful analysis of the published literature fails to provide compelling evidence that milk from rbGH-treated cows contains increased levels of IGF-1 compared to milk from untreated cows. http://www.fda.gov/cvm/RBRPTFNL.htm[/url]
FDA has examined the literature and finds no definitive evidence of any direct link between IGF-I and breast cancer. Some authors have hypothesized a link, whereas others have expressed that while IGF-I is one of several growth factors and hormones that can contribute to an increase in cell numbers of many cell types invitro, no one factor is responsible for changing normal cells into cancerous cells. Furthermore, FDA has been advised that there is no substantive evidence that IGF-I causes normal breast cells to become cancerous.(7)
http://www.fda.gov/cvm/RBRPTFNL.htm
