Re: [metatuning] Digest Number 58

I think this last issue was off-topic...

I have some problems with this article, which strikes me as a mixture of
possibly true and significant health information mixed with Luddite
propaganda. This kind of emotionalism does little to advance health or
technology. I find it hard to have much faith in the accuracy of this
kind of political rhetoric.

The elevated level of IGF in milk from cows treated with rBGH is
relevant only if the IGF from milk is absorbed and not digested in the
human gut. Is it? One needs to know also if even the natural level of
bovine IGF in milk is relevant to human health and whether the elevated
levels are significant. It may be that IGF in milk is digested and not
absorbed, even by infants (who can absorb some proteins without
digesting them) or that the levels are still to low to matter. Is bovine
IGF even active in humans? -- bovine growth hormone is not, BTW.

The term is "Insulin-like Growth Factor." IGF is not just a carcinogen,
it is necessary for normal growth of certain cells in animals. Most
natural hormones can stimulate some kinds of cancer cells. The dose and
timing are what are important, not just abstract carcinogenic potential.

--John

--- In metatuning@y..., John Chalmers <JHCHALMERS@U...> wrote:
> I think this last issue was off-topic...
>
> I have some problems with this article, which strikes me as a
mixture of
> possibly true and significant health information mixed with Luddite
> propaganda. This kind of emotionalism does little to advance health
or
> technology. I find it hard to have much faith in the accuracy of
this
> kind of political rhetoric.

Thanks for speaking out John. I consider myself an environmentalist
but this issue seems to have snowballed without any sound reasoning
behind it.
>
> The elevated level of IGF in milk from cows treated with rBGH is
> relevant only if the IGF from milk is absorbed and not digested in
the
> human gut. Is it? One needs to know also if even the natural level
of
> bovine IGF in milk is relevant to human health and whether the
elevated
> levels are significant. It may be that IGF in milk is digested and
not
> absorbed, even by infants (who can absorb some proteins without
> digesting them) or that the levels are still to low to matter. Is
bovine
> IGF even active in humans? -- bovine growth hormone is not, BTW.
>
> The term is "Insulin-like Growth Factor." IGF is not just a
carcinogen,
> it is necessary for normal growth of certain cells in animals. Most
> natural hormones can stimulate some kinds of cancer cells. The dose
and
> timing are what are important, not just abstract carcinogenic
potential.
>
>
> --John