Abstract
This is an advocacy letter on hormones in food. There is growing fear that presence of hormones in food can potentially cause harm in humans. Despite the continued reassurances from food manufacturers on the safety of the hormones in the food, consumers remain a worried lot. This has been occasioned by the food processing companies’ reluctance to publish the foods that have hormones. With hormone containing foods unlabeled, associations between the introduction of hormonal ingredients into the food supply and human illness present a difficult task to be systematically tested and causation conclusively established. This letter is targeted at various governmental departments that have the capability and funding to take action and petition on behalf of the consumer who may be powerless to twist the harm of food manufacturer to divulge the level of hormones in the food offered for sale.
ADVOCACY LETTER TO GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ON HORMONES IN FOODS
Government Agency/Department..
Re: Reexamining Labeling of Hormones in Foods
For the past five years, I have extensity studies the concept of hormones in foods. I have compared my findings, notes and the experiments procedures with those of other like-minded persons. My findings on hormones in foods largely agree with those of others. In this letter, I am going to share with you my findings in details. It is my sincere hope that the findings, given herein, are going to be of great help in informing policy making bodies on matters related to hormones in food.
Well, it is no secret that the key players in the food industry have spent an obscene amount of money in preventing the consumers what is the food they consume. The million dollar question here is why? If the food industry has confidence in foods, it produces why it isn’t proudly and willingly telling the consumers that some foods contain hormones remains a mystery (Bowers, 2007). Why conceal such a vital piece of information? The food industry’s adamancy to label foods containing attests to the lack of certainty in the safety of the foods put on the shelves.
With hormone containing foods unlabeled, associations between the introduction of hormonal ingredients into the food supply and human illness present a difficult task to be systematically tested and causation irrefutably established. Without labeling, scientific and medical researchers cannot determine who is consuming hormone containing foods and who does not. It is also not possible to determine how is being consumed, the types being eaten and as well as the frequency of consumption. Just like in the case of nicotine products, the lack of immediate danger hardly proofs the standards of safety with regards to consumptions of hormones in foods.
Consumers may not understand the consequences of hormones in foods but the food producers and manufacturers are afraid of answering certain questions that may seem sensitive and eventually bad for business. Additionally, most consumers believe that there are minimal adverse conditions if any that may emanate from eating foods embedded with genetically engineered hormones; mostly due to lack of immediacy of the haphazard outcome. For example, hormones are used to speed up the growth rate of eel. Surprisingly, it is easier to finding many other nutritional facts with regards to the amount of macronutrients and micronutrients present in eel unlike information regarding the hormonal modification that spurs its growth. Here, one wonders why it so difficult to disclose the hormonal information. Disclosure of this vital piece of information has always remained opposed giant chemical companies that sell higher amounts of herbicides, pesticides and genetically altered hormones used in plants and animals.
We have had intense debates among food scientists as to whether hormones that have been introduced lately to food have been extensively studied so as offer scientifically proven facts. Chemical companies have been funding studies with mega budgets; most of the studies seem to rubber stamp what the companies’ preferred narrative: hormones in food are not harmful for human consumption. About 100 hundred international doctors and scientists of great repute in recent times discredited the myth that chemical corporations have been banking on; the group said that there is no consensus regarding the safety of hormones in foods. The corporations obviously are not comfortable with labeling because they fear that it will provoke consumers to be in inquisitive with regards to the safety of the of hormonal containing food for human consumption. The most significant harm caused by hormones may be the environment we live in. Formerly advocated as eco-friendly and intended to minimalize the use of herbicides and pesticides, hormones seem to be having a juxtaposing effect. For example, plants that were engineered to withstand recurrent downpours of chemical weed killers have propagated a 10-fold rise in the application of the herbicide glyphosate on maize and cotton.
Milk and meat products appear to be most affected. As recounted in March 2011 in the New York Times, it was evidenced that FDA Commissioner dispatched letters about 17 food processing organizations letting them know that unavailing names of ‘undesirable’ ingredients in their foods were an offense. She further directed the companies to provide reliable nutritional facts to the consumers. Well, this is a good step; however, it remains useless if no action is taken to ensure implementation of the directive occurs. Some sections of food scientists and consumers have already begun to raise eyebrows on the failures of the FDA Commissioner with regards to ensuring that her directive was implemented. Why do I bring the subject of implementation at this juncture? Well, it is because we presently have very beautiful laws to ensure hormones and herbicides are regulated, but not many people seem to implement them due to the failure of the authority. Being governmental departmental heads means you have the power and capacity to steer positive change. Let change start with you.
As shown in Appendix One, statistically over 20% of milk in the USA is genetically engineered with rBGH. This drug has elevated amounts of a natural growth factor known as IGF-1. This is an Insulin-like Growth Factor 1.The hormone is not digested and it is quickly absorbed together with foods from the small intestine into the blood stream. Higher quantities of IGF-1 have been are associated with high risks of breast cancer as shown in more than 19 scientific papers, dangers of colon cancer in 10 scientific articles, and prostate cancer in 8 scientific journals. There are more concerns regarding higher levels of IGF-1 in the body systems; it has been established to impede natural defense mechanisms against initial microscopic cancers, called apoptosis. It is important petitioned to note that the scientific substantiation for the harmfulness of rBGH milk is handled more elaborately elsewhere (Chen, 1995).
Centered on these apprehensions, towards the last century, the United Nations Food Safety Agency, representing 101 nations globally, agreed on a consensus vote not to ratify or set safety benchmarks for rBGH in animal products. In effect, this has occasioned in a global ban on US milk. Additionally, centered on these interests, the Cancer Prevention Coalition, authorized by five guiding national expatriates, requested the FDA mid2007 to provide labels rBGH milk with unequivocal cancer warnings. With no response, the petition was resubmitted in 2010 to the FDA commissioner. The response came in 2013 with no plans for implementation and follow-up. US livestock is embedded with natural or synthetic sex hormones before to entering feeding phase which characterized by massive feeding before slaughter so as increase their meat harvest. Not unexpectedly, USA meat is adulterated with elevated amounts of sex hormones. Anchored on these points, and as counseled by the Cancer Prevention Coalition and leading national cancer expatriates, USA beef has increased threats of hormonal cancers, which have spiraled over the last four decades; that is breast by 14 percent, prostate cancer by 66 percent, and testis by 20 percent as shown in Appendix Two. As such, the US needs not to worry about the burn of their meat globally.
Moreover, as noticeably demonstrated in a series of General Accounting Office studies and Congressional deliberations, the FDA, together with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), has shown weakness with regards to undertaking any guiding action to shield the public from the problems of hormonal animal products such as milk and meat. In a 2006 report, on Human Food Safety and Regulation of Animal Drugs, it was collectively agreed by the House Committee on Government Operations that the FDA had constantly ignored its role. This was arrived following the high regard of interests of veterinarians and the livestock industry over its legal obligation to shield consumers, endangering the health and safety of consumers of animal products (Epstein, 2013).
While responding to the questions raised by the European Commission on the dangers of hormonal animal products, USDA did not provide adequate explanations to its below 0.25% of animals tested every year proved explicit for “residue violations” (Epstein, 2007). As a matter of fact, milk and meat remain unmonitored for sex hormone quantities by both USDA and FDA. Teaming with other top scientific researchers, in early, 2010, the Cancer Prevention Coalition tendered a Citizens Petition to the FDA on looming health dangers from hormonal animal products, with substantial citations from about 60 scientific articles. The FDA is yet to respond. We are eagerly awaiting its response, and I urge them to respond with haste.
It is the belief that this letter has illuminated on the major issues that would shed light on two main areas. First, I hope the letter would lead to a better understanding of hormones in foods. Enhancing awareness and understanding hormones in foods will promote preparedness of the consumers to choose foods an informed manner. Second, this research has the potential to produce knowledge that can be used by policy developers at both national and international level to craft policies related to promoting the use of food free of harmful hormones. Finally, it is my belief that this letter would produce shared common knowledge for both consumer and food producer, and its results can be used as a basis for improvement of food choices.
References
Bowers, L. (2007). Criminalization of Healthy Food.
Chen, J. M. (1995). The agroecological opium of the masses. Choices,10(04), 16.
Epstein, S. (2007). What's In Your Milk?: An Exposé of Industry and Government Cover-Up on the Dangers of the Genetically Engineered (rBGH) Milk You're Drinking. Trafford Publishing.
Epstein, S. S. (2013). Criminal Indifference of the FDA to Cancer Prevention: An Anthology of Citizen Petitions, Newspaper Articles, Press Releases, and Blogs 1994–2011. Xlibris Corporation.
APPENDICES
Appendix One: Genetically Engineered Milk with rBGH
Appendix Two: Rise of Hormonal-Linked Cancers since 1975
