Ractopamine: The Meat Additive on Your Plate That's Banned Almost Everywhere But America

  Personal Health  

AlterNet / By Martha Rosenberg

Ractopamine: The Meat Additive on Your Plate That's Banned Almost Everywhere But America

The asthma drug-like growth additive has enjoyed stealth use in the US food supply for a decade despite being widely banned overseas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

October 30, 2013  |  

 

 

Have you ever heard of ractopamine? Neither have most US food consumers though it is  used in 80 percent of US pig and cattle operations. The asthma drug-like growth additive, called a beta-agonist, has enjoyed stealth use in the US food supply for a decade despite being widely banned overseas. It is marketed as Paylean for pigs, Optaflexx for cattle and Topmax for turkeys.

This month, the Center for Food Safety  (CFS) and Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) have sued the FDA for withholding records pertaining to ractopamine's safety. According to the lawsuit, in response to the groups' requests for information "documenting, analyzing, or otherwise discussing the physiological, psychological, and/or behavioral effects" of ractopamine, the FDA has only produced 464 pages out of 100,000 pages that exist. Worse, all 464 pages have already been released as part of a reporter's FOIA. Thanks for nothing.

CFS and ALDF have spent over 18 months meeting with the FDA and seeking information about the effects of ractopamine on "target animal or human liver form and function, kidney form and function, thyroid form and function" as well as urethral and prostate effects and "tumor development." The lawsuit says the CFS has "exhausted administrative remedies" and that the FDA has "unlawfully withheld" the materials.

Ractopamine's effects on animals are documented, say the groups, but effects on humans remain a mystery. Codex, the UN food standards body, established ractopamine safety residues on the basis of only one human study of six people and one subject dropped out because of adverse effects! "Data from the European Food Safety Authority indicates that ractopamine causes elevated heart rates and heart-pounding sensations in humans," says CFS.

In an early Canadian study, monkeys given ractopamine "developed daily tachycardia"-- rapid heart beat. Rats fed ractopamine developed a constellation of birth defects like cleft palate, protruding tongue, short limbs, missing digits, open eyelids and enlarged heart.

Two cousin drugs of ractopamine, clenbuterol and zilpaterol, cause such adrenalin effects in humans they are banned by the Olympics. Cyclist Alberto Contador failed a Tour de France anti-doping test in 2010 for levels of clenbuterol which he said he got from eating meat. Clenbuterol has been banned or restricted in meat after human toxicities. "The use of highly active beta-agonists as growth promoters is not appropriate because of the potential hazard for human and animal health," wrote the journal Talanta.

Certainly the ractopamine label puts no one at ease. "WARNING: The active ingredient in Topmax, ractopamine hydrochloride, is a beta-adrenergic agonist. Individuals with cardiovascular disease should exercise special caution to avoid exposure," says the label for the turkey feed. "Not for use in humans. Keep out of the reach of children. The Topmax 9 formulation (Type A Medicated Article) poses a low dust potential under usual conditions of handling and mixing. When mixing and handling Topmax, use protective clothing, impervious gloves, protective eye wear, and a NIOSH-approved dust mask. Operators should wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling. If accidental eye contact occurs, immediately rinse eyes thoroughly with water. If irritation persists, seek medical attention. The material safety data sheet contains more detailed occupational safety information. To report adverse effects, access medical information, or obtain additional product information, call 1-800-428-4441." This is used in food production?

Trade Travail

 

Ractopamine is banned in the EU, Russia, China, Taiwan and many other countries. In 2007, China seized shipments of US meat and charged that frozen ribs, pig ears and sausage casing contained ractopamine. This year, when the US refused to comply with ractopamine-free certification, Russia closed its market to US beef, pork and turkey.

The US calls anti-ractopamine restrictions unscientific and unwarranted while its balking partners call the use of ractopamine unscientific and unwarranted. "China says it’s worried about the higher levels of drug residues that can be found in pig organs, which are part of a traditional Chinese diet, and Russia claims the drug could pose health risks," reports Food Safety News.

In 2007 more than 3,500 pig farmers in Taiwan rioted because of rumor that a ractopamine ban would be lifted. Demonstrators, some carrying pigs, threw rotten eggs and dung at people and buildings chanting, "Get out, USA pork" and "We refuse to eat pork that contains poisonous ractopamine," reported Taiwan News. After Hou Sheng-Mou, the department of health minister, assured the crowd the ban was still in place and touched a piglet, for unclear reasons, the crowd left.

Last year, the riots were repeated replete with eggs and dung when newly re-elected President Ma Ying-jeou reversed the 2007 assurances and proposed that the ractopamine ban be lifted with products labeled accordingly. Taiwan hog farmers fear "lifting the ban could spark widespread health concerns that would affect consumption of other meat products, undermining their livelihoods," reported the Associated Press.

The sale of Smithfield foods to Shuanghui International this year, China's biggest takeover of a US company, also has implications for ractopamine. Smithfield is converting it hog plants to "ractopamine-free" animals and announced that by last June its operations would be 50 percent ractopamine-free to please the Chinese markets. (Shuanghui is not guilt-free when it comes to beta-agonists--it was forced to recall its Shineway brand meat products because of clenbuterol fears.)

Penny Wise and Pound Cruel

Why is ractopamine fed to animals? Why are antibiotics, hormones and arsenic fed to animals in the US? Ractopamine is a growth enhancer and livestock operations make more money with less feed.

Optaflexx "served up 17 lbs. more live weight, 14 lbs. more carcass weight, 0.3 sq. in. more ribeye area, and 0.3% more dressing percent when fed according to label directions," extolled Beef magazine said in 2005. Ractopamine wasn't implemented until cattle growers were assured that it "wouldn't dilute quality grades" and didn't cause "altered animal behavior," assured the magazine.
Both assurances were premature. Ractopamine has caused more harm to pigs than any other drug. FDA reports link it to a startling string of conditions in cattle and pigs like respiratory disorders, hoof disorders, bloat, abnormal lameness and leg disorders, hyperactivity, stiffness, aggression, stress, recumbency (inability to get up) and death. Even the animal expert Temple Grandin has spoken out. "I've personally seen people overuse the drug in hogs and cattle," she said and "the pigs were so weak they couldn't walk." Ractopamine causes such hoof damage, hooves have actually fallen off reports Countryside magazine--a phenomenon Grandin reports with the similar drug zilpateral (Zilmax).

And meat quality? Turkey meat produced with ractopamine has "alterations" in muscle such as a "mononuclear cell infiltrate and myofiber degeneration," say a 2008 new drug application from Elanco, ractopamine's manufacturer. There was "an increase in the incidence of cysts," and differences, some "significant," in the weight of organs like hearts, kidneys and livers. ("Enlarged hearts" had been in rats in the Canadian studies.) Happy Thanksgiving.

Spin Jobs

 

When a food additive no one knew they were eating comes under scientific scrutiny, Big Food and Big Pharma create an It's Innocuous fact sheet. Meat turns brown just like an apple says a fact sheet from the American Meat Institute defending the use of carbon monoxide to keep meat red. “People would be more likely to die from a bee sting than for their antibiotic treatment to fail because of macrolide-resistant bacteria in meat or poultry," says a brochure from the Animal Health Institute defending antibiotics in meat.

Ractopamine is similarly neutralized by the National Pork Board. It "helps pigs make the most of the food they eat [thanks, guys!] by promoting the conversion of dietary nutrients into lean muscle, which helps produce a leaner meat product" and working "in the same way that human health supplements do."

Ractopamine is also "green" says Colleen Parr Dekker, a spokesperson for Elanco . Moving away from beta-agonists would increase corn demand and environmental impacts since the animals would need to eat more to produce the same amount of meat!

Global AgriTrends, an industry group agrees. If beef and pork producers dropped beta-agonists like ractopamine, 91 million more bushels of corn would be necessary! The green spin is reminiscent of the National Turkey Federation's Michael Rybolt testimony that antibiotics are green on Capitol Hill. Without antibiotics, more land would be needed to grow crops to feed turkeys and more housing would be necessary because the birds could not be squeezed together, he said. There would even be "an increase in manure," he threatened.

We're Eating What?

If the Center for Food Safety and Animal Legal Defense Fund are successful in prying 100,000 pages of safety information about ractopamine loose from the FDA, there will probably being a collective, national "yuck" sound. But meat producers may see the writing on the wall before that happens. A beef industry conference in Denver in August included a pro-and-con discussion of the drugs with a video depicting distressed cows struggling to walk shown by meat giant JBS USA. On the same day, in an apparently unrelated event, Tyson Foods Inc announced it would no longer accept cattle fed the ractopamine cousin zilpateral because of cattle that had "trouble moving after being delivered."
Maybe ractopamine will eventually be phased out like lead in gasoline or rBGH in milk and for similar reasons. But, meanwhile, don't count on Smithfield's ractopamine-free initiative benefiting the US like it will China. “Americans aren't getting the ractopamine-free pork,” Elisabeth Holmes, a staff attorney for the Center for Food Safety, revealed.

Martha Rosenberg is an investigative health reporter and the author of Born With a Junk Food Deficiency: How Flaks, Quacks and Hacks Pimp The Public Health (Prometheus Books).

Dirty Dozen List of Endocrine Disruptors: 12 Hormone-Altering Chemicals and How to Avoid Them

Dirty Dozen List of Endocrine Disruptors

12 Hormone-Altering Chemicals and How to Avoid Them

 

Monday, October 28, 2013

There is no end to the tricks that endocrine disruptors can play on our bodies: increasing production of certain hormones; decreasing production of others; imitating hormones; turning one hormone into another; interfering with hormone signaling; telling cells to die prematurely; competing with essential nutrients; binding to essential hormones; accumulating in organs that produce hormones.

Here are 12 of the worst hormone disrupters, how they do their dirty deeds, and some tips on how to avoid them.

BPA

Some may say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but do you really want a chemical used in plastics imitating the sex hormone estrogen in your body? No! Unfortunately, this synthetic hormone can trick the body into thinking it’s the real thing – and the results aren’t pretty. BPA has been linked to everything from breast and others cancers to reproductive problems, obesity, early puberty and heart disease, and according to government tests, 93 percent of Americans have BPA in their bodies!

How to avoid it? Go fresh instead of canned – many food cans are lined with BPA – or research which companies don’t use BPA or similar chemicals in their products. Say no to receipts, since thermal paper is often coated with BPA. And avoid plastics marked with a “PC,” for polycarbonate, or recycling label #7. Not all of these plastics contain BPA, but many do – and it’s better safe than sorry when it comes to keeping synthetic hormones out of your body. For more tips, check out: www.ewg.org/bpa/

Dioxin

Dioxins are multi-taskers… but not in a good way! They form during many industrial processes when chlorine or bromine are burned in the presence of carbon and oxygen. Dioxins can disrupt the delicate ways that both male and female sex hormone signaling occurs in the body. This is a bad thing! Here’s why: Recent research has shown that exposure to low levels of dioxin in the womb and early in life can both permanently affect sperm quality and lower the sperm count in men during their prime reproductive years. But that’s not all! Dioxins are very long-lived, build up both in the body and in the food chain, are powerful carcinogens and can also affect the immune and reproductive systems.

How to avoid it? That’s pretty difficult, since the ongoing industrial release of dioxin has meant that the American food supply is widely contaminated. Products including meat, fish, milk, eggs and butter are most likely to be contaminated, but you can cut down on your exposure by eating fewer animal products.

Atrazine

What happens when you introduce highly toxic chemicals into nature and turn your back? For one thing, feminization of male frogs. That’s right, researchers have found that exposure to even low levels of the herbicide atrazine can turn male frogs into females that produce completely viable eggs. Atrazine is widely used on the majority of corn crops in the United States, and consequently it’s a pervasive drinking water contaminant. Atrazine has been linked to breast tumors, delayed puberty and prostate inflammation in animals, and some research has linked it to prostate cancer in people.

How to avoid it? Buy organic produce and get a drinking water filter certified to remove atrazine. For help finding a suitable filter, check out EWG’s buying guide: www.ewg.org/report/ewgs-water-filter-buying-guide/

Phthalates

Did you know that a specific signal programs cells in our bodies to die? It’s totally normal and healthy for 50 billion cells in your body to die every day! But studies have shown that chemicals called phthalates can trigger what’s known as “death-inducing signaling” in testicular cells, making them die earlier than they should. Yep, that’s cell death – in your man parts. If that’s not enough, studies have linked phthalates to hormone changes, lower sperm count, less mobile sperm, birth defects in the male reproductive system, obesity, diabetes and thyroid irregularities.

How to avoid it? A good place to start is to avoid plastic food containers, children’s toys (some phthalates are already banned in kid’s products), and plastic wrap made from PVC, which has the recycling label #3. Some personal care products also contain phthalates, so read the labels and avoid products that simply list added “fragrance,” since this catch-all term sometimes means hidden phthalates. Find phthalate-free personal care products with EWG’s Skin Deep Database: www.ewg.org/skindeep/

Perchlorate

Who needs food tainted with rocket fuel?! That’s right, perchlorate, a component in rocket fuel, contaminates much of our produce and milk, according to EWG and government test data. When perchlorate gets into your body it competes with the nutrient iodine, which the thyroid gland needs to make thyroid hormones. Basically, this means that if you ingest too much of it you can end up altering your thyroid hormone balance. This is important because it’s these hormones that regulate metabolism in adults and are critical for proper brain and organ development in infants and young children.
How to avoid it? You can reduce perchlorate in your drinking water by installing a reverse osmosis filter. (You can get help finding one at: www.ewg.org/report/ewgs-water-filter-buying-guide) As for food, it’s pretty much impossible to avoid perchlorate, but you can reduce its potential effects on you by making sure you are getting enough iodine in your diet. Eating iodized salt is one good way.

Fire retardants

What do breast milk and polar bears have in common? In 1999, some Swedish scientists studying women’s breast milk discovered something totally unexpected: The milk contained an endocrine-disrupting chemical found in fire retardants, and the levels had been doubling every five years since 1972! These incredibly persistent chemicals, known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers or PBDEs, have since been found to contaminate the bodies of people and wildlife around the globe – even polar bears. These chemicals can imitate thyroid hormones in our bodies and disrupt their activity. That can lead to lower IQ, among other significant health effects. While several kinds of PBDEs have now been phased out, this doesn’t mean that toxic fire retardants have gone away. PBDEs are incredibly persistent, so they’re going to be contaminating people and wildlife for decades to come.

How to avoid it? It’s virtually impossible, but passing better toxic chemical laws that require chemicals to be tested before they go on the market would help reduce our exposure. A few things that can you can do in the meantime include: use a vacuum cleaner with a HEPA filter, which can cut down on toxic-laden house dust; avoid reupholstering foam furniture; take care when replacing old carpet (the padding underneath may contain PBDEs). Find more tips at: www.ewg.org/pbdefree/

Lead

You may or may not like heavy metal music, but lead is one heavy metal you want to avoid. It’s well known that lead is toxic, especially to children. Lead harms almost every organ system in the body and has been linked to a staggering array of health effects, including permanent brain damage, lowered IQ, hearing loss, miscarriage, premature birth, increased blood pressure, kidney damage and nervous system problems. But few people realize that one other way that lead may affect your body is by disrupting your hormones. In animals, lead has been found to lower sex hormone levels. Research has also shown that lead can disrupt the hormone signaling that regulates the body’s major stress system (called the HPA axis). You probably have more stress in your life than you want, so the last thing you need is something making it harder for your body to deal with it – especially when this stress system is implicated in high blood pressure, diabetes, anxiety and depression.

How to avoid it? Keep your home clean and well maintained. Crumbling old paint is a major source of lead exposure, so get rid of it carefully. A good water filter can also reduce your exposure to lead in drinking water. (Check out www.ewg.org/report/ewgs-water-filter-buying-guide/ for help finding a filter.) And if you need another reason to eat better, studies have also shown that children with healthy diets absorb less lead.

Arsenic

Arsenic isn’t just for murder mysteries anymore. In fact, this toxin is lurking in your food and drinking water. If you eat enough of it, arsenic will kill you outright. In smaller amounts, arsenic can cause skin, bladder and lung cancer. Basically, bad news. Less well known: Arsenic messes with your hormones! Specifically, it can interfere with normal hormone functioning in the glucocorticoid system that regulates how our bodies process sugars and carbohydrates. What does that mean for you? Well, disrupting the glucocorticoid system has been linked to weight gain/loss, protein wasting, immunosuppression, insulin resistance (which can lead to diabetes), osteoporosis, growth retardation and high blood pressure.

How to avoid it? Reduce your exposure by using a water filter that lowers arsenic levels. For help finding a good water filter, check out EWG’s buying guide: www.ewg.org/report/ewgs-water-filter-buying-guide/

Mercury

Caution: That sushi you are eating could be hazardous to your health. Mercury, a naturally occurring but toxic metal, gets into the air and the oceans primarily though burning coal. Eventually, it can end up on your plate in the form of mercury-contaminated seafood. Pregnant women are the most at risk from the toxic effects of mercury, since the metal is known to concentrate in the fetal brain and can interfere with brain development. Mercury is also known to bind directly to one particular hormone that regulates women’s menstrual cycle and ovulation, interfering with normal signaling pathways. In other words, hormones don’t work so well when they’ve got mercury stuck to them! The metal may also play a role in diabetes, since mercury has been shown to damage cells in the pancreas that produce insulin, which is critical for the body’s ability to metabolize sugar.

How to avoid it? For people who still want to eat (sustainable) seafood with lots of healthy fats but without a side of toxic mercury, wild salmon and farmed trout are good choices.

Perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs)

The perfluorinated chemicals used to make non-stick cookware can stick to you. Perfluorochemicals are so widespread and extraordinarily persistent that 99 percent of Americans have these chemicals in their bodies. One particularly notorious compound called PFOA has been shown to be “completely resistant to biodegradation.” In other words, PFOA doesn’t break down in the environment – ever. That means that even though the chemical was banned after decades of use, it will be showing up in people’s bodies for countless generations to come. This is worrisome, since PFOA exposure has been linked to decreased sperm quality, low birth weight, kidney disease, thyroid disease and high cholesterol, among other health issues. Scientists are still figuring out how PFOA affects the human body, but animal studies have found that it can affect thyroid and sex hormone levels.

How to avoid it? Skip non-stick pans as well as stain and water-resistant coatings on clothing, furniture and carpets.

Organophosphate pesticides

Neurotoxic organophosphate compounds that the Nazis produced in huge quantities for chemical warfare during World War II were luckily never used. After the war ended, American scientists used the same chemistry to develop a long line of pesticides that target the nervous systems of insects. Despite many studies linking organophosphate exposure to effects on brain development, behavior and fertility, they are still among the more common pesticides in use today. A few of the many ways that organophosphates can affect the human body include interfering with the way testosterone communicates with cells, lowering testosterone and altering thyroid hormone levels.

How to avoid it? Buy organic produce and use EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce, which can help you find the fruits and vegetables that have the fewest pesticide residues. Check it out at: www.ewg.org/foodnews/

Glycol Ethers

Shrunken testicles: Do we have your full attention now? This is one thing that can happen to rats exposed to chemicals called glycol ethers, which are common solvents in paints, cleaning products, brake fluid and cosmetics. Worried? You should be. The European Union says that some of these chemicals “may damage fertility or the unborn child.” Studies of painters have linked exposure to certain glycol ethers to blood abnormalities and lower sperm counts. And children who were exposed to glycol ethers from paint in their bedrooms had substantially more asthma and allergies.

How to avoid it? Start by checking out EWG’s Guide to Healthy Cleaning (www.ewg.org/guides/cleaners/) and avoid products with ingredients such as 2-butoxyethanol (EGBE) and methoxydiglycol (DEGME).

Key Issues, Toxics, Health Concerns: 

Toxics

Consumer Products

8 Pink Foods that Fight Breast Cancer

8 Pink Foods that Fight Breast Cancer

Posted on:

Monday, October 14th 2013 at 5:30 am

Written By:

Jamie Kiffel-Alcheh

There are plenty of "pink" products in support of breast cancer awareness, but why not just cut out the middle man and eat naturally pink anti-breast cancer foods?

It's Breast Cancer Awareness Month, when companies love to showcase pink packaging...but sometimes, what's inside those packages isn't so healthy. So we've rounded up 8 naturally pink foods that have all been shown to help keep away breast cancer. Always choose organic to avoid pesticides and toxins. Go, Mother Nature!

Red cabbage

A compound called indole-3-carbinol (also rich in cruciferous vegetables) is now being researched for its potential to significantly reduce the incidence of breast cancer.

Pomegranates

These gem-like fruits may prevent breast cancer, lab studies suggest, by blocking a certain enzyme (aromatase) that converts androgen to estrogen.

Beets

Extract of red beetroot has been shown to help suppress multi-organ tumors in lab tests, and experts are considering using them in combination with traditional anticancer drugs to reduce their toxic side effects.

Radishes

High in antioxidants, these have been shown to help reduce the spread of breast cancer cells. Additionally, a lab study with Japanese radish sprouts significantly lowered the incidence of mammary tumors.

Carrots

Full of beta carotene like their orange counterparts, the red and purple in these heirloom carrots indicates extra antioxidant power.

Apples

Red and pink peels indicate cancer-fighting anthocyanins...plus quercetin, a flavonol that inhibited breast cancer growth in a recent petri dish study.

Sweet potatoes

Not to be confused with yams, the pink-skinned or purple versions of these are high in antioxidants. Orange flesh indicates beta carotene—shown to reduce breast cancer risk by as much as 25% when eaten regularly. And a Japanese study on rats showed that sweet potato extracts reduced existing breast cancer tumors, and held back the growth of new ones.

Grapes

Choose red ones for the rich antioxidants in their skins: you'll get the same cancer-fighting component as in wine, but without the alcohol, which some studies suggest can boost cancer risk.

Share this meme on Facebook!

Jamie is Managing Editor of Clean Plates. She served as Editor-in-Chief of healthy living email Vital Juice; Features and Entertainment Editor at Woman's World; Managing Editor of Women's News, and a features writer for National Geographic Kids. She is a graduate of Wellesley College.      

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Moms Fight Back against Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) Money Laundering

Moms Fight Back against GMA Money Laundering

You know what they say. You can’t fool mom.
When a group of pro-labeling moms in Washington D.C. figured out that the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) was breaking the state’s campaign finance disclosure laws, they did something about it. They formed a grassroots group, Moms for Labeling, and they sued the GMA.

Their complaint? The GMA is concealing the identities of out-of-state corporations, namely Big Food companies, which are funneling donations to the NO on I-522 campaign through the multi-billion dollar Washington D.C.-based lobbying group. The Moms had a whistleblower lined up to testify. But then the judge dismissed their case, on a technicality.

You’d think that would have been enough to make the GMA happy, but no. The lobbying giant went after the Moms with a countersuit, prompting a judge to slap the Moms with a $10,000 fine, under a law that is supposed to protect citizens from frivolous suits by big companies.

End of story? Not yet. In dismissing the suit, the judge ruled that under the circumstances, only the state attorney general now has the authority to sue the GMA for violating Washington’s Public Disclosure Act.

The NO on I-522 campaign has so far raised $17.1 million to blanket the airwaves with lies, as it tries to scare voters into voting against the I-522 GMO labeling initiative. The GMA, which represents over 300 corporations including Kraft, Kellogg’s, Monsanto, Dupont, Starbucks, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, ConAgra and General Mills, has kicked in $7.2 million so far – $5 million more than the lobbying group spent last year in California, to defeat a similar GMO labeling initiative.

Who’s missing from the NO on I-522 donor roster this year? The junk food giants who spent millions last year, but this year, are hiding their donations from public view.

Let’s pick up where the Moms for Labeling left off, by insisting that Washington’s attorney general force the GMA to comply with the state’s campaign disclosure laws.

TAKE ACTION: Tell Washington State’s Attorney General: Investigate the GMA’s Money Laundering Scheme, Don’t Punish Moms!

OCA IN ACTION

OCA Presents Monsanto Minions Awards, Stages Anti-Lobbying Protest

Today’s the day. The OCA, with our friends at Occupy Monsanto, will deliver the first annual Monsanto Minions Awards.

But that’s only half the story. Remember Abbie Hoffman’s famous 1967 New York Stock Exchange theatrical protest? Where Hoffman and the Yippies threw cash out on the trading floor, prompting a Wall Street-style dash for cash?

Today, (October 10, 2013), our pro-GMO labeling, anti-Monsanto activists, posing as biotech and big food industry lobbyists, will stage a similar protest. They’ll dump briefcases of cash onto the X-ray machines at the entrances to the Congressional office buildings, where lobbyists are waiting to go through the metal detectors. We’re hoping the real corporate lobbyists will lunge for the fluttering bills, causing enough of a ruckus to shut down the entrance.

Lobbyists scurrying to grab dollar bills? It’s the perfect metaphor for what’s happening right now on Capitol Hill. Despite the government shutdown, lobbyists are meeting with the Congresspersons they supported financially during the elections in the hopes of convincing them - with cold hard cash, no doubt -  to create or protect federal laws designed to feather their own nests.
As for the Monsanto Minions Awards, according to your votes, we’re crowning Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) as your favorite Monsanto Minion.  You can see the rest of the results here. Thanks for voting, and let’s keep up the pressure on our favorite minions!

Read the press release
More on the Monsanto Minions Award

Cholesterol Drugs Linked To Eye Damage, JAMA Study Confirms Anew

Cholesterol Drugs Linked To Eye Damage, JAMA Study Confirms Anew

Posted on: Friday, September 27th 2013 at 9:30 am

 

Written By:

Sayer Ji, Founder

 

A new study published in JAMA Ophthalmology titled, "Association of Statin Use With Cataracts: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis," reveals that the top-grossing, cholesterol-lowering drug class known as statins is significantly increasing the risk of cataracts within exposed populations.[1]

Statin-induced eye damage will be a surprising finding to some, especially to statin drug advocates who have argued that the purported 'antioxidant' effects of statins 'may slow the natural aging process of the lens.' This latter, strictly theoretical benefit is increasingly being disproved by the biomedical literature. In fact, last year, we reported in an article titled, "Blind To The Truth: The Eye-Damaging Effects of Statins," on findings published in Optometry and Vision Science, revealing that statin drugs users have a 48% higher risk of pathological eye lens changes commonly associated with cataract formation.

A cataract is a clouding of the lens of the eye which leads to a decrease in vision, and is a leading cause of blindness in the world. The most commonly identified causes are aging, trauma and excessive UV radiation exposure, along with a still poorly understood genetic component. While there is preclinical evidence that the opacity of the lens can be reversed through natural substances such as wheatgrass,[2] the most common conventional approach is to treat the condition with surgery, which does nothing to mitigate or undo the underlying causes.

Researchers at San Antonio Military Medical Center, San Antonio Texas, compared the risks for development of cataracts between statin users and nonusers, using a military health care system database. The study design was described as follows:

"Based on medication fills during fiscal year 2005, patients were divided into 2 groups: (1) statin users (received at least a 90-day supply of statin) and (2) nonusers (never received a statin throughout the study). Among 46 249 patients meeting study criteria, we identified 13 626 statin users and 32 623 nonusers."

The main results were reported as follows:

"For our primary analysis, we matched 6972 pairs of statin users and nonusers. The risk for cataract was higher among statin users in comparison with nonusers in the propensity score-matched cohort (odds ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.17). In secondary analyses, after adjusting for identified confounders, the incidence of cataract was higher in statin users in comparison with nonusers (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.15-1.40). Sensitivity analysis confirmed this relationship."

In other words, the risk for cataract was between 9% and 27% higher in statin users, leading the study authors to conclude: "The risk for cataract is increased among statin users as compared with nonusers. The risk-benefit ratio of statin use, specifically for primary prevention, should be carefully weighed, and further studies are warranted."

What is important to point out is that the human eye is an extension of the nervous system, which is the second most lipid- and cholesterol-concentrated tissue type next to adipose tissue in the human body. The lenses of mammals, but particularly the human lens, is extremely stable due in part to its cholesterol content. Amazingly, this is why the only reported lipid remaining in a frozen mammoth 40,000 years after its death was from its lens membranes.[3] Therefore, given the crucial role that cholesterol plays as a structural and functional biomolecule within the eye, is it any wonder that cholesterol-inhibiting drugs adversely affect them?

Also, considering that statin drugs bear a wide range of additional health risks, with over 300 known adverse effects associated with their use extensively documented in the biomedical literature [see our Statin Drug database], the reported cardiovascular benefits of this drug class may not be significant enough any longer to justify their use.  To the contrary, the research increasingly indicates that statin drugs are both muscle-damaging (myotoxic) and nerve-damaging (neurotoxic) – a concerning heart-damaging (cardiotoxic) combination, as the heart muscle is a highly nerve-dense muscle.

At the very least, patients need to be adequately informed of their risks in order for the medico-ethical principle of informed consent to even be possible.  Failing that, the drug-based default approach in using statin drugs for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease violates the most basic ethical and likely legal rights of their patients.

For extensive documentation of the potential adverse health effects of statin drugs, as well as research into scientifically vetted natural alternatives, read any of our recent reports on the topic:

• Cholesterol Lowing Statins Found To Damage Peripheral Nerves
  
• Statin Drugs Found To Accelerate Arterial Calcification
  
• Statin Drugs Linked To Arthritis, Heart Trouble And More
  
• Confirmed Again: Statin Drugs Calcify The Coronary Arteries
  
• Statins Provide No Benefit: Study of 4 Million People
  
• Are Statin Drugs Killing The Health Benefits Of Omega-3 Fat?
  
• A New Greek Name for Statin Toxicity: Polymyalgia Rheumatica
  
• Statins Raise Diabetes Risk by 48% for Postmenopausal Women
  
• Statin Drugs Linked To Worsening Osteoarthritis Of The Knee
  
• Sugarcane Extract Superior To Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs?
  
• Chocolate Gives Statins A $29 Billion Run For Their Money
  
• How LOW Cholesterol Can Harm Your Health

There already exists an extensive body of preclinical and even some clinical research on natural cholesterol-lowering substances. We have spent years indexing this research in order to make it freely available on our natural research database. You can view that research here [Cholesterol-Lowering Substances]. Please be aware that by providing access to information we are not providing medical advice. It is very important for the health consumer to understand, as well, that when combining natural interventions with drugs you risk profound, even deadly interactions. It is advisable, therefore, to search out the help of a licensed health professional, preferably with an integrative medical background to assist you with your health problems.

For additional research, please feel free to visit (or share with your health practitioner) our research page: Health Guide: Statin Drugs.

For health care practitioners, consider using our Professional Database Features, to greatly enhance your ability to retrieve, comprehend and disseminate the biomedical information on our multiple databases.

References

---

[1] Jessica Leuschen, Eric M Mortensen, Christopher R Frei, Eva A Mansi, Vasudha Panday, Ishak Mansi.Association of Statin Use With Cataracts: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2013 Sep 19. Epub 2013 Sep 19. PMID: 24052188

[2] GreenMedInfo.com, Research > Ailments > Index: C's > Cataract

[3] Douglas Borchman1,* and Marta C. Yappert. Lipids and the ocular lens  J Lipid Res. 2010 September; 51(9): 2473–2488.  doi:  10.1194/jlr.R004119 PMCID: PMC2918433

Sayer Ji is an author, researcher, lecturer, and advisory board member of the National Health Federation.

He founded Greenmedinfo.com in 2008 in order to provide the world an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. It is widely recognized as the most widely referenced health resource of its kind.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Are You Roundup for 2? FYI

 

 

Roundup Ready Soybean Patent Expiration

 
The first-generation Roundup Ready® soybean trait – the world’s most widely adopted biotech trait, planted by farmers on billions of acres since 1996—comes off patent in 2015.

Since the launch of Monsanto’s first-generation Roundup Ready soybeans in 1996, agricultural technology and science has advanced by leaps and bounds. Scientists mapped the soybean genome, developed better trait insertion techniques and identified better traits to help farmers yield more bushels per acre. One result of all three of those accomplishments has been Monsanto’s development of Genuity® Roundup Ready 2 Yield® trait technology.

Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield trait technology is the next-generation of the Roundup Ready soybean trait. Monsanto developed Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield trait technology to deliver more yield and profit potential to farmers while maintaining the weed control benefits of the original Roundup Ready system. Farmers have planted more than 50 million acres of the second-generation trait since it launched in 2009.

Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield trait technology and Roundup Ready trait technology are protected by different patents. While the Roundup Ready soybean trait patent expires in 2015, the Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield trait is protected by patents for many more years. As the first-generation Roundup Ready soybean trait approaches patent expiration, here are some things that stakeholders should know.

Farmers and Saving Seed

The first possibility of planting seeds saved from Roundup Ready soybean varieties will occur in spring 2015 (using seeds from the crop planted and harvested in 2014). Farmers who are interested in replanting saved Roundup Ready soybeans will need to check with their seed supplier to find out if the variety they are interested in can legally be saved and replanted. In addition to the trait patent, most Roundup Ready soybeans are protected by other forms of intellectual property, such as varietal patents. These variety patents will continue to be valid after (and usually long after) the Roundup Ready trait patent expires.

Farmers will not be able to save seed from Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybeans, either now, in 2015, or for many years beyond that. The Roundup Ready soybean trait and Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybean trait are protected by different patents. The trait patents on the Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield trait are not expected to expire until near the end of the next decade.

Seed Companies and Trait Technologies

Seed companies will have the choice to offer their preferred trait technology to farmers. As far as Monsanto’s soybean traits, seed company licensees will have the opportunity to choose to offer the first-generation Roundup Ready soybean trait, the improved next-generation Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybean trait or both as part of their soybean trait technologies offerings for farmers. Seed company licensees can make the business plans that make the most sense for their operations and their customers.

Regulatory support

Even though the Roundup Ready soybean trait will no longer be on patent, it will continue to be regulated for export because it is a biotech trait. Monsanto expects to maintain full global regulatory support for the Roundup Ready soybean trait through 2021. This enables farmers to continue to market their soybeans around the world for the next 8 years and, perhaps beyond, if a third party is interested in taking responsibility for the relevant regulatory packages beyond that time.

Patent Protection, Innovation and Choice

The fact that Monsanto and other biotech companies continue to invest in the development of new soybean traits that will benefit farmers indicates the U.S. patent system provides incentive for innovation. The transition of the first-generation Roundup Ready soybean technology into the public domain represents another benefit – patent expiration provides a means for public access to the technology. This system motivates individuals as well as companies, to invest in all types of new technologies that make U.S. farmers and our economy more competitive.
 

Monsanto and Roundup Ready varieties Monsanto has communicated that, after the trait patent has expired, it will allow farmers to save certain Roundup Ready soybean varieties. This permission applies only to a limited number of varieties. Here are a couple things that farmers need to know: First, the permission will apply only to varieties developed by Monsanto breeders; other breeders and the companies they work for are likely to enforce their variety patents to prevent the saving and replanting of seed. Farmers should not assume that all seed sold under Monsanto brands was developed by Monsanto breeders; some of the varieties we offer have been in-licensed by us from third party breeders. Saving and replanting seed without a license to do so under the applicable variety patents would infringe those patents. If farmers are interested in saving and replanting first-generation Roundup Ready soybeans in 2015 or after that, they will need to ensure that they have applicable licenses to do so under any variety patents that cover that seed, and they will need to observe the rules about how that seed can be saved (e.g., only from their own farm back onto their own farm). At a minimum, farmers will need to check with their seed supplier to ensure they have the correct licenses and that they understand the limits of those licenses. If farmers want to save seed sold under another brand, they need to check with the company selling that brand. The breeder who developed that seed is under no obligation to allow that seed to be saved. Before saving seed, farmers will have to determine whether the company selling the seed is able to provide them with a license to save seed under the variety patents and if that company is willing to let the farmer save the seed. Second, any seed of Monsanto varieties that is to be saved has to be harvested from the farmer’s own fields, and replanting of that seed is allowed only on that farmer’s fields. It would be illegal to provide saved seed to others for replanting or to obtain saved seed from others and plant it on your own farm.

3 Scary Misconceptions About One of the Most Widely Prescribed Drugs for Heart Attack Prevention

           

  Personal Health  

AlterNet / By Alison Rose Levy

      

3 Scary Misconceptions About One of the Most Widely Prescribed Drugs for Heart Attack Prevention

Statins are a classic example of a misused medicine.

 

Photo Credit: Shutterstock/Andrew S.



 

September 25, 2013  |  

 

 

Like this article?

Join our email list:

Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.

 

 

 

 

With statin medications, used to prevent heart attacks, among the most widely prescribed drugs in the U.S., most people make certain assumptions:

1. There is solid science for their use.
2. There is no doubt that their targeted mechanism of action prevents a heart attack.
3. No less costly approaches exist.

None of these is entirely true.

 

When it comes to any widespread medical treatment, most people want to trust that the health recommendations they receive are for their benefit. People don’t want to have to evaluate the credibility of their doctor’s medical advice, no less the premises of the healthcare system. While many treatments are effective, it’s not wise to overlook that the economic motive sometimes intrudes in the health equation. This occurs because the interlocking sectors of the current healthcare system blur important ethical boundaries, and in some cases erase them.

 

The intrusion of economics into health science is most noticeable in the gaps between health claims and actual outcomes. When seemingly “evidence-based” research is shaped by market considerations, healthcare treatments may fall short in delivering favorable aggregate health results.  In this article, I’ll explore the gap through the disputed science, and protectionism accorded one of the most widely prescribed medications in the conventional medical arsenal: Statin drugs.

 

Conspiracy of False Hope

 

Currently, 24 million Americans take statin medications that lower cholesterol as so-called “secondary prevention,” which research has demonstrated to be effective. Secondary prevention means deterring subsequent heart attacks and strokes in those who have already experienced a heart attack.

 

In contrast, “primary prevention” is the prevention of cardiac incidents in people who have yet to experience any cardiac problems.  Though initially approved by the FDA only for the purpose of secondary prevention, statins are now in even wider use for primary prevention, despite the fact that the medical evidence of their efficacy for this specific use is sketchy. Encouraged by pharmaceutical companies, doctors often prescribe drugs beyond their proven scope of efficacy, with the result that millions can be on drugs that may or may not work, and may have harmful side effects (which can include muscle weakness, kidney damage, blood sugar levels, memory loss, and cataracts).

 

Statins are one of the most well-known examples of this standard practice of extended use of a drug beyond its area of solid efficacy. How does this happen?

 

"There's a conspiracy of false hope," explained Harvard Medical School's John Abramson, a critic of widening statin use. "The public wants an easy way to prevent heart disease, doctors want to reduce their patients' risk of heart disease and drug companies want to maximize the number of people taking their pills to boost their sales and profits."

 

Phrases like “simple, fast, and easy,” are droned repetitively in all forms of health advice from the self-help to the medical realms. They speak to a population too pressured, preoccupied or concerned with economic goals to spend much time taking care of themselves (or each other for that matter). People are entrained by all forms of medical advertising to go for the quick fix.

 

The Science for Statin Use

 

Prescribing statins to prevent heart disease seems like a bone fide quick fix. Except that there is a debate as to whether science has demonstrated their efficacy for “primary prevention.”

 

That claim rests upon the findings in a sole study.

 

Today, the results of the so-called JUPITER study ("Justification for the Use of Statins in Primary Prevention," published in 2008) serve as the principle basis for the statin prescriptions doctors write for millions of people who have never had heart attacks and who take them as per their doctor’s advice to prevent heart attacks.

 

A trio of articles published in the June 2010 Archives of Internal Medicine (AIM) revisited the JUPITER study to probe whether the efficacy claim for primary prevention is borne out by the data. The scientists found that, “contrary to widely held belief, statins do not drive down death rates among those who take them to prevent a first heart attack.” Further, a critical analysis in this same issue of AIM probed how the JUPITER trial was conducted. This probe revealed, “Potential ethical, clinical and financial conflicts of interest at work in the execution of the JUPITER study.” The authors concluded that the widely hailed trial was "flawed" and raises "troubling questions concerning the role of commercial sponsors."

 

What was at stake in the study outcome was "tens of billions of dollars of revenue for the sponsor over the patent life of the drug … as well as potentially millions of dollars in royalties for the principal investigator," wrote Lee Green of the University of Michigan Medical School.

 

As Green admitted, "Doubtless, both sponsor and investigative team believe they made their design decisions for the right reasons… But social psychology research provides abundant evidence that we human beings both respond strongly to self-interest incentives and firmly believe that we do not. "

 

You don’t need a PhD degree in psychology or sociology to understand the economic inducements that might motivate doctors evaluating drugs they have developed, weighing in on studies they have conducted, or made by companies they work for. Even though countless doctors and scientists operate with impeccable integrity, they do so within a system that permits and rewards a lack of integrity. Condoned practices (and regulatory policies) permit the potential for cross-contamination of interests, rather than offering frameworks that prevent or limit them.

 

Melissa Healy writing in the L.A. Times noted that:

 

In an ideal world, debate over the clinical virtues or vices of a drug would be long settled by the time the medication saw a meteoric rise in use. But in a healthcare system that relies on commercial incentives to spur drug development, prescription medications are a product like any other.

 

Government regulatory agencies, in this case the Food and Drug Administration, are supposed to act as public watchdogs. But those familiar with the workings of the FDA question the agency's ability to manage the activities of the pharmaceutical industry. Healy adds:

 

The FDA assesses drugs' safety and effectiveness for specific use; but its judgments are based on preliminary data, most of it generated by a drug company seeking approval for its product. Once the agency approves a drug for marketing, the company that makes it will move quickly and aggressively to expand the universe of patients taking its product.”

 

What about down-line physicians urged to fall in with these recommendations? Were all the cardiologists in the U.S. prepared to take out their prescription pads based on the questionable JUPITER study results? Yes, they were, because these results were soon thereafter instated as “standard practice.”

 

As noted in an article in the English medical journal, The Lancet, when the U.S. revised its guidelines for primary prevention of cardiac disease, it did so by moving the previously established benchmark for statin use: It lowered what doctors characterized as optimal cholesterol levels. That meant that millions of people who previously had cholesterol safely within the designated “optimal” range, now learned that overnight their numbers had become too high. There was no change in their actual cholesterol level. What changed was the benchmark.

 

An additional 23 million people thereby became candidates for statin use, which as the study authors note, “offers huge economic implications for the manufacturers of statins.”

 

Who changed the guidelines?

 

Writes Mark Hyman, “Eight of the nine panel members who established these new guidelines had industry ties. An independent group of over 30 scientists in a letter to the National Institutes of Health publicly opposed these recommendations.” While it’s laudable that honest physicians stood up and attempted to clean house, it’s unfortunate that this is not an isolated instance of corruption.

 

Similar to the panel that established the new cholesterol guidelines, expert medical panels are routinely convened to create medical practice guidelines, Hyman points out. Physicians rely on these guidelines to “determine what medications to use and how to keep up with best practices. Yet scientists and physicians with financial ties to the industry or to the drugs being evaluated are allowed to participate in the panels and shape their decisions.

 

For example, Hyman says, “in a survey of 200 expert panels, one-third of the panelists had a financial interest in the drugs they evaluated.”

 

So while most members of the general public are wowed by the promise of objective science, the rules accepted in actual practice stray from the objective ideal.

 

The Right Mechanism of Action?

 

By designating a lower cholesterol level as optimal, the vested panelists instantly broadened their market. But since extending treatment to non-cardiac patients failed to reduce death rates, the rationale for treatment must be examined.­ Were lowered cholesterol levels a sound determinant for decreasing cardiac risk? Would a drug that lowered cholesterol levels wind up lessening the incidence of cardiac disease and death?

 

Not necessarily.

 

According to a National Public Radio piece, “Doctors call the practice of using a drug to move a biochemical marker, ‘treating the numbers’ — trying to get a patient's test results to a certain target, which they assume will treat — or prevent — disease.”

But a study released in 2010 questions that widespread practice. The study found that people taking a drug that lowers cholesterol saw no corresponding change in major arterial plaque, believed to be a precursor to cardiac disease. 

 

“It reminds us of something that we often forget: the number isn't the outcome. And this raises concerns that just lowering the number doesn't get you where you want to be," Steve Atlas of Massachusetts General Hospital told the NPR reporter.

For nearly 50 years, medical treatments have targeted high levels of “bad” cholesterol as the prime contributor to plaque formation and cardiovascular illness. But over time, an increasingly vocal group of scientists have questioned the sequence of cholesterol, then plaque, then cardiovascular illness as the prime mechanisms for heart disease.

For example, aspirin, a widely used over-the-counter approach to lowering heart attack risk, and one recommended by many cardiologists, targets inflammation, not cholesterol levels. A more recent and growing body of medical thought targets inflammation as the precursor to cardiovascular illness.

 

The Most Effective and Low-Cost Treatment?

 

Statins are not the only treatment option. A natural food called red yeast rice has similar properties. When used in combination with lifestyle changes for patients who could not tolerate statins due to side effects, the supplement was found to be effective in lowering cholesterol just as effectively as statins. According to the University of Maryland Medical Center website, the red yeast rice component monocalin K, has the same chemical composition as certain statins and produces a similar effect.

 

Some researchers think that's why red yeast rice lowers cholesterol. But others point out that the amount of monacolin in red yeast rice is less than you would find in the prescription drug. They think there may be other substances in red yeast rice that help lower cholesterol. More research is needed.

 

Statins cost approximately $100 per month in the US (400 percent the cost in the UK, a study comparing the two countries found). One month’s supply of red yeast rice costs from $13 to $20, a fraction of the cost. But there is one problem. In deference to the pharmaceutical producers of statins, in 1998, the FDA declared that the presence of monocalin K transformed the supplement into an “unapproved drug.” The FDA requires supplement manufacturers to excise the active component from their products, even though it is naturally found in the food. It’s unclear whether some trace amounts of the active components may remain in certain products.

 

James S. Turner, chairman of Citizens for Health, a grassroots health advocacy group, questions the rationale by which a government agency favors the business interests of the manufacturers of a synthesized product, while demanding that supplement manufacturers remove naturally occurring components in food products. This policy is part of the legal continuum that permits companies to patent genes and seeds.

On what basis does an agency charged with serving the public compel citizens to pay higher prices for a drug when a food is available at lower cost? Until a better-informed public makes the FDA accountable for such policy decisions, the favored status accorded pharmaceuticals will likely continue.

 

Alison Rose Levy @alisonroselevy writes on health, food and the environment. Her Web site is healthjournalistblog.com and her weekly radio program on Progressive Radio is Connect the Dots.