Ethicurean friend Derf sent us a news clip recently about a Journal of Reproductive Medicine article (alas, no free eWeb access). It suggested that the rise in twins over the last few decades is probably not just from increased fertility treatments in the U.S., but quite likely from the side effects of synthetic bovine growth hormone (rBGH) in the food supply.
American women who consumed conventional dairy products were FIVE TIMES as likely to have twins as vegan moms (who did not). Organic-consumer rumors to the contrary, there’s no scientific evidence (yet) that rBGH is also behind early-onset puberty in girls. The Journal of Reproductive Medicine article links the twins to the increased presence of insulin-like growth factor (IGF) in milk-drinking mothers, which is a natural byproduct of rBGH that survives pasteurization. And according to the above Washington Post article debunking the puberty myth, studies have linked higher levels of IGF-1 in the blood with a greater risk of breast cancer in premenopausal women and prostate cancer in men.
rBGH apparently is used in only a fifth of dairy cows, to increase their milk production by 15% — but all that milk gets mixed together in giant tanks to be pasteurized and homogenized. Is the health risk really worth the payoff?
The survey in the JRM article did not ask the vegetarian and omnivorous mothers whether they sought out synthetic-hormone-free milk, which is slowly becoming available all over the U.S. — even in the dread Wal-Mart. I’m going to e-mail the author of the study and ask whether he considered breaking down the survey responses this way.
Update: Dr. Gary Steinman, the author of the Journal of Reproductive Medicine Article and an obstetrician well known for research into multiple-birth pregnancies, wrote me back, which was very nice of him.
I had asked him not only about the potential difference between regular and organic milk, but also about a reference to an earlier article he had written noting that African-American women have the highest incidence of twins and Asian women the lowest, with Caucasian women in the middle. I inquired whether he had looked at the dairy consumption of those ethnic groups to see if there was a possible correlation, knowing that many Asians tend to be lactose-intolerant.
Here’s what Steinman replied:
You raise very good points. First of all, the data collected from vegans came predominantly from deliveries between 1970-1983, before “organic” milk became widely available. Based on deliveries today, it would be interesting to see if going organic would make a difference in the nonvegan population. Keep in mind that this must consider spontaneous pregnancies, not induced.
Secondly, I have tried to get information about the levels of milk consumption of various ethnic groupings, but sofar have been unsuccessful. However, I suspect the difference would follow the same trend.
Opinions on whether “going organic” would have an effect, or is there too much non-organic-dairy-derived material out there in everything else to make much of a difference?
Food, Farming, & Food Politics events calendar
Humor:
May 31st, 2006 at 10:18 pm
Starbucks uses rBGH milk in its milk drinks. Customers can get organic milk (Horizon) instead, but they have to ask.
February 1st, 2007 at 8:00 am
Its interesting that this doctor was able to draw conclusions about rBGH by studying twin births that occurred BEFORE rBGH was on the market. I wish these scientists were more careful about controlling their studies, there really could be an open discussion about this if people had good facts.