CORRESPONDENCE Re: Re: Role of the Insulin-Like Growth Factors in Cancer Development and Progression We write to correct several misrepre- sentations and serious factual errors in the correspondence by Samuel S. Epstein (1). Among these are the state- ments 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 ex- pert 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 Administra- tion (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 re- ceiving rBST (4). There is thus no evi- dence that milk marketed from herds treated with rBST has “excess IGF lev- els” 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 Commit- tee 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 deci- sion not to approve rBST for sale in member countries was based not on hu- man health concerns but rather on ani- mal issues (7). Milk and milk products from cattle treated with rBST are recog- nized as safe and may be marketed in European Union member countries (3). ROBERT J. COLLIER DALE E. BAUMAN 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. Trans- genic 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. Con- cerning the placing on the market and admin- istration of bovine somatotropin (BST) and re- pealing Decision 90/218/EC. Official Journal of the European Communities. 1999/879/EC. Brussels (Belgium): Eur-Lex; 1999. NOTES 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@ag.arizona.edu). 876 CORRESPONDENCE Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 93, No. 11, June 6, 2001 by guest on April 12, 2012 http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from View publication stats View publication stats