How is rbst made

Topics: Glossary of Exposures. Take Action Donate. What evidence links rBST to breast cancer? People who consume dairy products are most likely to be exposed. The United States does not require labeling of products from hormone-treated cattle, so individuals may be unknowingly exposed to rBST. Who is most vulnerable to the health effects?

Research has shown an increased risk of pre-menopausal breast cancer in women with high IGF-1 in their blood, which can be increased by rBST, though studies seem inconclusive. What are the top tips to avoid exposure? Use products labeled rBST free.

Labeling products containing rBST is not required, but many companies voluntarily indicate that they do not use dairy from rBST treated cows. On top of this, BGH is not active in humans, so even if it were absorbed from drinking milk, it wouldn't be expected to cause health effects.

Of greater concern is the fact that milk from rBGH-treated cows has higher levels of IGF-1, a hormone that normally helps some types of cells to grow. Several studies have found that IGF-1 levels at the high end of the normal range may influence the development of certain tumors.

Some early studies found a relationship between blood levels of IGF-1 and the development of prostate , breast , colorectal , and other cancers, but later studies have failed to confirm these reports or have found weaker relationships. While there may be a link between IGF-1 blood levels and cancer, the exact nature of this link remains unclear.

But this same finding has also been reported in people who drink soy milk. This suggests that the increase in IGF-1 may not be specific to cow's milk, and may be caused by protein, minerals, or some other factors in milk unrelated to rBGH.

There have been no direct comparisons of IGF-1 levels in people who drink ordinary cow's milk vs. At this time, it is not clear that drinking milk, produced with or without rBGH treatment, increases blood IGF-1 levels into a range that might be of concern regarding cancer risk or other health effects. These were:. At least 8 other national and international review committees have evaluated the evidence concerning potential health effects of rBGH on humans and dairy cows.

Approval would be based on a finding that the product is harmless for both the animals and for human consumption. Regulations also evaluate the purity, effectiveness, potency and stability of a medication. When the medication meets the regulatory requirements, Health Canada issues a notice of compliance. As long as rbST has not received this notice, it may not be legally sold in Canada.

A medication included in this Schedule may be sold only by an authorized practitioner in Canada. If rbST receives a notice of compliance, it may be sold to a dairy producer only by an authorized veterinarian, who will be responsible for recommending to his or her client how best to use the product.

The practice of veterinary medicine is governed by the provincial organizations responsible for issuing the licence that every veterinarian must have in order to practise. Thus, the fact that only authorized practitioners may sell veterinary medicines constitutes a control over the sale of these products and acts as a means of restricting any abuse of them. H ealth Canada is responsible for mandatory labelling requirements dealing with such health issues as the presence of allergenic products or changes in the nutritional composition of a product.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency CFIA is responsible for any labelling that does not relate to food safety; that is, voluntary labelling and labelling designed to protect consumers against fraud.

Thus, the CFIA ensures that Canadian and imported dairy products comply with the regulations governing quality and labelling. I t is very likely that products such as cheese and yogurt made from milk produced by rbST-treated cows have been imported into Canada. In that country, milk from treated cows is considered to be as safe as milk from untreated cows and there is no labelling requirement concerning rbST on dairy products. Furthermore, according to the CFIA, there is no means of identifying these products.

H owever, because dairy products are identified by their country of origin, the consumer can decide whether to purchase products from countries that have already approved rbST. On the other hand, products in which milk is only one ingredient among many ice cream, for example are classified as Canadian products, no matter where their raw materials may have originated.

I f rbST is approved for use in Canada, the issue of a notice of compliance would imply that the product had been found not to pose any particular threat to human health. When a product does not pose a threat, Health Canada does not require any mandatory labelling, but voluntary labelling is permitted if the information is verifiable.

I n October , Health Canada issued the first Experimental Studies Certificate for an rbST-based product, concluding that the milk of animals given the product did not present risks to human health. P rovel, a division of Eli Lilly Canada Inc. I n , Monsanto Canada made an application for approval of its rbST-based product sometribove, marketed under the name "Nutrilac".

The Committee made seven recommendations including the imposition of a one-year moratorium for conducting a detailed review of the impact of rbST and creation of a task force to carry out that review.

A one-year moratorium on the sale of rbST was put in place in July This moratorium is still in effect. I n May , an article in the Globe and Mail reported that some Health Canada scientists had questioned the process for assessing the impact of rbST on human health. I n July , the Dairy Farmers of Canada asked that the Auditor General to review the rbST approval process, that the Codex alimentarius Commission 1 express an opinion on whether the hormone is harmless, and that Health Canada inform the public of the process for assessing the approach used in deciding whether to grant approval.

I n July , the Netherlands proposed a motion to the Codex alimentarius requesting that establishment of a maximum limit for residues be delayed while data relating to human health were reassessed by the Joint FAO-WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives and the application of "legitimate factors other than the scientific analysis" was reviewed.

Canada voted against the motion. I n January , Health Canada set up an internal review team made up of four evaluators, including two scientists who had worked at the office responsible for evaluating an rbST-based product and had challenged the evaluation process in the press.

The team produced two reports: the first, dated 21 April , on the analysis of shortcomings in the evaluation process, is unanimous; the second, dated June 10, , is signed by the two Health Canada evaluators who did not work for the office responsible for evaluating the rbST-based product. Both reports state that the rbST evaluation process had methodological and scientific shortcomings.

These hearings indicated that the rbST evaluation process had not always been correctly followed. Witnesses told the Committee of management problems at Health Canada, claiming that there had been pressure, coercion, theft of documents on rbST, and a rule of silence with respect to rbST.

M eanwhile, two expert panels, one working under the auspices of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and a second working under the auspices of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, evaluated whether rbST was harmful to human and animal health respectively. Both panels submitted their reports in January A s long as rbST has not received a notice of compliance, it cannot be sold legally in Canada.

Since it was established in , one of its goals has been to define food standards and codes governing hygiene and technology in light of the safety of food additives and contaminants it has evaluated more than additives and determined more than 3, maximum levels of pesticide residues.

S ales of recombinant bovine somatotropin rbST have been permitted in the United States since February American law does not require the milk from rbST-treated cows to be labelled as such, although it is possible to label milk as being rbST-free. Where this is done, however, it must also be indicated that the Food and Drug Administration has determined that there is no significant difference between the milk from cows treated with rbST and milk from cows that have not been so treated.

A merican consumer reaction has been studied by Georges Brinkman, an economist at the University of Guelph. I n the year following the introduction of rbST, milk consumption remained steady.

It would appear that this trend can be explained primarily by the fact that the product available did not make distinctions: in the United States, milk is not identified as coming or not coming from cows treated with rbST. Milk may be labelled as rbST-free, provided that it is also specified that there is no significant difference in the milk of cows that have been treated with rbST and cows that have not.

During the period from January to August , milk consumption even increased by 0. In Wisconsin and Vermont, however, buying habits are different.

In Wisconsin, milk identified as being rbST-free was the choice of most consumers in ; however, in , most milk sold for consumption in that state was unlabelled and could have come from cows treated with the hormone. In Vermont, consumer milk from companies known to produce rbST-free milk represented most of the sales in In these two States, a double system offering both and undifferentiated milk seems to have been necessary to maintain sales.

However, opposition to rbST apparently resulted in part from concerns about a threat to the rural way of life and came as much from producers as consumers. A cross the country, studies conducted in showed that rbST was no longer of concern to American consumers. Milk consumption in the United States seems to vary more according to price increases, advertising and fat content than to the use of this hormone.

However, in light of the information published by the Senate of Canada concerning scientific shortcomings in the rbST evaluation process, two United States Senators and a number of public interest groups have urged the Food and Drug Administration to review its conclusions on rbST.

E ven though it claims that rbST has no impact on human health, the European Union has imposed a moratorium on the use of this hormone until 31 December This decision was based essentially on social and economic considerations such as a fear of penalizing small farmers, the existence of milk surpluses and the fear of consumer reaction.

However, there is no ban on the importation of dairy products from countries that have approved the use of rbST. In June , the Institute of Food Science and Technology in Great British announced that there was no scientific or moral reason to require labelling identifying between milk or meat from rbST-treated cows.

In July , the Netherlands, speaking for the European Union, proposed a motion to the Codex alimentarius 1 requesting a postponement of the establishment of a maximum limit for residues in order to allow for a reassessment by the Joint FAO-WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives of the data concerning human health and a review of the "application of factors other than the scientific analysis.