© 2001 by Oxford University Press
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 93, No. 11, 876,
June 6, 2001
© 2001 Oxford University Press
CORRESPONDENCE |
Re: Re: Role of the Insulin-Like Growth Factors in Cancer Development and Progression
Affiliations of authors: R. J. Collier, University of Arizona, Tucson; D. E. Bauman, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Correspondence to: Robert J. Collier, Ph.D., University of Arizona, Department of Animal Sciences, 217 Shantz, Tucson, AZ 85721–0038 (e-mail: rcollier{at}ag.arizona.edu).
We write to correct several misrepresentations and serious factual errors in the correspondence by Samuel S. Epstein (1). Among these are the statements that "the nation's milk supply has been contaminated with excess IGF [insulin-like growth factor] levels;" "IGF ... is readily absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, and has growth promoting effects;" and "confirmation of these concerns by an international expert committee prompted the January 2000 European ban on the marketing and sale of rBGH [recombinant bovine growth hormone] milk."
The IGF-I content of milk from cattle treated with bovine somatotropin (rBST or rBGH) has been reviewed extensively by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2), the European Union (3), and the World Health Organization (WHO) (4). Comparisons of marketed milk indicate that there are no differences in the IGF-I concentrations between milk certified as derived from cows not treated with rBST and milk derived from cows receiving rBST (4). There is thus no evidence that milk marketed from herds treated with rBST has "excess IGF levels" as stated in (1). In addition, studies investigating the biologic activity of orally delivered IGF-I have uniformly demonstrated no change in serum IGF-I concentrations, even at oral doses greatly exceeding physiologic levels of IGF-I present in the digestive tract (5,6). Furthermore, the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (4) concluded that "any increase in the concentration of IGF-I in milk from rBST-treated cows is orders of magnitude lower than the physiological amounts produced in the gastrointestinal tract and in other parts of the body."
Finally, the European Union's decision not to approve rBST for sale in member countries was based not on human health concerns but rather on animal issues (7). Milk and milk products from cattle treated with rBST are recognized as safe and may be marketed in European Union member countries (3).
REFERENCES
1
Epstein SS. Re: Role of the insulin-like growth factors in cancer development and progression [letter]. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:238.
2 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA responds to citizen petition on BST. FDA Veterinarian Newsletter, vol XV, No. 3; 2000. p. 8. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/cvm/fda/mappgs/efoi.htm
3 Haligaard P, Gaspard I, Avraam D. No need for maximum residue limit for risk-free BST, says commission. Brussels (Belgium): La Prensa; 1999. p. 954.
4 Ungemach FR, Weber NE. Toxicological evaluation of certain veterinary drug residues in food. Fiftieth meeting of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. Geneva (Switzerland): WHO Food Additives Series. No. 41; 1998. p. 125–46.
5 Burrin, DG, Wester TJ, Davis TA, Amick S, Heath JP. Orally administered IGF-I increases intestinal mucosal growth in formula-fed neonatal pigs. Am J Physiol 1999;270(5 Pt 2): R1085–91.
6
Burrin DG, Fiorotto ML, Hadsell DL. Transgenic hypersecretion of des(1–3) human insulin-like growth factor I in mouse milk has limited effects on the gastrointestinal tract in suckling pups. J Nutr 1999;129:51–6.
7 Council decision of 17 December 1999. Concerning the placing on the market and administration of bovine somatotropin (BST) and repealing Decision 90/218/EC. Official Journal of the European Communities. 1999/879/EC. Brussels (Belgium): Eur-Lex; 1999.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  E. J Feuer, R. Etzioni, K. A Cronin, and A. Mariotto The use of modeling to understand the impact of screening on US mortality: examples from mammography and PSA testing Statistical Methods in Medical Research, December 1, 2004; 13(6): 421 - 442. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. A. Shaw, R. Etzioni, S. B. Zeliadt, A. Mariotto, K. Karnofski, D. F. Penson, N. S. Weiss, and E. J. Feuer An Ecologic Study of Prostate-specific Antigen Screening and Prostate Cancer Mortality in Nine Geographic Areas of the United States Am. J. Epidemiol., December 1, 2004; 160(11): 1059 - 1069. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. J. Coldman, N. Phillips, and T. A. Pickles Trends in prostate cancer incidence and mortality: an analysis of mortality change by screening intensity Can. Med. Assoc. J., January 7, 2003; 168(1): 31 - 35. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Harris and K. N. Lohr Screening for Prostate Cancer: An Update of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Ann Intern Med, December 3, 2002; 137(11): 917 - 929. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||