SICK WORLD: Man Accused Of Impregnating 10-Year-Old

[尼古拉前执事]

June 08, 2005

The vanishing little girl

By Eileen Curtis
For the Times Herald-Record

The little girl with blond hair still played with dolls when she got her first period.
She'd just turned 10.
"It was overwhelming," says her mother, Ruby Gold of South Fallsburg. "My daughter asked me, 'Mommy, why am I so happy one minute and so sad the next?' It's hard to explain to a little girl the emotions she's feeling."
Especially when not all of her friends feel that way.
And how do you explain to an even younger girl, who's just mastered the alphabet, why she needs to wear a bra? Especially when her friends don't?
What's really going on? Is a girl's childhood fading all too soon these days?
Turns out girls do get their periods years earlier than they did a century or two ago. In 1800, the average age of a girl's first period was 17. In 1900, it was 14 to 15.
Most girls now get their first periods between the ages of 11 and 13.
But that number has remained relatively stable in the past 30 years, according to a 2003 report published in the journal Pediatrics.
It dropped just three months, from 12.75 years in 1973 to 12.43 years in 2003.
Even so, mothers aren't kidding when they say girls today are growing up faster than they did in the '60s, '70s and '80s.
In fact, a fair number of first-graders are already developing secondary sex characteristics such as breasts and pubic hair, according to a study of more than 17,000 American girls.

JUST WHAT is going on here?
Stroll the malls of the mid-Hudson, and you'll see girls dolled up like Britney Spears, in mini-skirts, halter tops and bare midriffs.
But it's not just the clothes – or lack thereof – that make primary school kids look like they're already in high school.
Forty years ago, a girl usually traded in her undershirt for a bra when she was in the seventh or eighth grade. More often than not, it was a "training bra," more symbolic than supportive, or a size 28AA.
Today, many bra manufacturers offer nothing smaller than size 32A. Hit the Bali site on the Internet and the smallest size you'll find is 34B.
It's no wonder. Astonishingly, nearly one in seven white girls today begins to develop breasts and pubic hair by age 8.
Black girls begin even earlier, for reasons that remain unclear, even adjusting for weight and height. By age 7, 15 percent of black girls have begun developing breasts and pubic hair. By age 8, the percentage climbs to half.
Earlier physical development "is a real phenomenon," says Dr. Marcia Herman-Giddens, lead author of a groundbreaking study on the issue, published in 1997. And the impact is significant.
Girls who still jump rope must cope with bodies that belie their tender years. That's why Herman-Giddens says girls and boys ("They shouldn't be left out," she says) need to be prepared, as do their parents, teachers and doctors.
Tina Robie agrees. She's director of education and training for Planned Parenthood of the Mid-Hudson Valley, in Newburgh.
Robie says a 12-year-old who looks like she's 18 may feel pressure to act like a teenager. "She's faced with making decisions her brain just isn't capable of making," she says.
"The biggest challenge for young girls today isn't medical," agrees Dr. Rebecca Shaw, clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine. "The primary risk is behavioral. There's just so much peer and media pressure out there for girls to engage in sexual activity."

WHY ARE GIRLS DEVELOPING grown-up bodies so soon? For Herman-Giddens, likely culprits include obesity, diet and exposure to environmental chemicals.
Other theories include the bombardment of sexual messages from MTV and rock lyrics, along with stress and living with stepfathers. In a Monticello hair salon, the buzz was hormones in the chicken we eat.
The cause may be a combination of factors. But the rise of obesity ranks high on most experts' lists, according to Dr. Frank Biro, professor of pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati Children's Medical Center and a leading researcher on puberty.
Girls today are, on average, 10 pounds heavier and an inch taller than they were in 1963, according to statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Studies have shown that heavier girls develop earlier than thin girls.
Still, Biro wonders whether weight gain is causing earlier development, or if earlier development is causing weight gain. "It's the chicken and egg thing," he says.
For Ruby Gold, it's the chicken we eat – and the hormones she believes it contains. She says her family never ate processed foods, and she grew all her own vegetables.
"But we ate a lot of chicken," she says.
Biro, who grew up on a farm in eastern Pennsylvania, says we may indeed be exposed to substances in our food and water that contribute to earlier development. But he isn't sold on the hormones in the chicken theory.
He gives more credence to chemicals in the environment that affect estrogen levels. They're found in hair products that contain placenta. "I'm not saying the stores are stocked with them, but they're out there," he says.
Other dangers are "plasticizers" – chemicals used to produce plastic. Chemical cousins of estrogen, plasticizers may stimulate breast development. Plus, there's the pollution in the food chain, such as PCBs, and insecticides.
Some experts believe these estrogen-disrupting chemicals could explain why girls are developing breasts at ever earlier ages. It could also explain why the average age of a girl's first period, which is governed more by the brain's pituitary gland than by estrogen levels, hasn't dipped nearly as much in recent decades.
But it's not just chemistry that hastens the demise of girlhood. It's the culture, too. Stroll the mall once more and you'll see little girls wearing makeup and nail polish and shopping for the perfect wardrobe.
Click on the "Girls in America" Web site and see what young Andrea of South Carolina has to say:
"You get up in the morning and you're like, 'God, I gotta do my hair, I gotta do my makeup … ' You just want to go back to that little girl who didn't care, who just got up and played all the time."
But as Andrea has discovered, the golden light of girlhood is a lot like summer.
It fades away too fast.

[尼古拉前执事]

By Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig, PhD

A recent feature article in Time Magazine reported on the disturbing increase in early puberty among girls in the US. According to a recent study reported in the journal Pediatrics,1 one percent of all American girls now show signs of puberty, such as breast development or pubic hair, before the age of three; by age eight, 14.7 percent of white girls and almost 50 percent of African-American girls had one or both of these characteristics.

The consequences of truncated childhood are tragic. Young girls with mature bodies must cope with feelings and urges that most children are not well-equipped to handle. And early maturation in girls is frequently a harbinger for problems with the reproductive system later in life including failure to menstruate, infertility, breast cancer, headaches and early menopause.

In their discussion of the possible causes, Time's reporters speculate on the role of environmental estrogens such as PCBs and DDE (a breakdown product of DDT), which have been shown to cause similar effects in animals.2 Meat and milk are also fingered as possible sources of dietary hormones.

But the authors never reveal the number-one suspect—soy infant formula. Although they mention the 1986 Puerto Rico Premature Thelarche study,3 they do not tell their readers that most significant dietary association with premature sexual development was not chicken—as reported in the press—but soy infant formula. The second most powerful association was indeed chicken—chicken raised on soy-based feed.

Approximately 25 percent of bottle-fed children in the US receive soy-based formula—a much higher percentage than in other parts of the Western world. The Woman, Infants and Children (WIC) program, which supplies free infant formula to welfare mothers, stresses soy formula for African Americans because they are supposedly allergic to milk. This would explain the astronomically high rates of premature development in African American girls.

In 1998, investigators reported that the daily exposure of infants to isoflavones in soy infant formula is six to 11 times higher on a body weight basis than the dose that has hormonal effects in adults consuming soy foods. Circulating concentrations of isoflavones in infants fed soy-based formula were 13,000 to 22,000 times higher than plasma estradiol concentrations in infants on cows milk formula.4

New Zealand toxicologist Mike Fitzpatrick estimates that an infant exclusively fed soy formula receives the estrogenic equivalent (based on body weight) of at least five birth control pills per day.5 By contrast, almost no phytoestrogens have been detected in dairy-based infant formula or in human milk, even when the mother consumes soy products.

Anecdotal reports of other problems associated with children of both sexes who were fed soy-based formula include extreme emotional behavior, asthma, immune system problems, pituitary insufficiency, thyroid disorders and irritable bowel syndrome.6

In 1998, in response to growing concerns about the damage caused by soy-based infant formula, Nutrition Reviews published an article by K. O. Klein of duPont Hospital for Children as proof that soy infant formulas do no harm.7 Yet in the article Klein notes that effects of isoflavones on various animal species include hormonal changes, increased uterine weight and infertility. "It is clear from the literature," says Klein, "that different species and different tissues are affected by isoflavones in markedly different ways. It is difficult to know which tissues, if any, are affected in infants, and the variation among species makes extrapolation to infants inappropriate." This is scientific double talk. Scientists may be reluctant to extrapolate but parents would certainly err on the side of caution if they knew that "isoflavones affect different tissues in markedly different ways."

Klein says that medical literature provides "no evidence of endocrine effects. . and no changes in timing of puberty." But she makes no mention of the Puerto Rican study which strongly implicated soy formula. Why would Dr. Klein leave out any reference to the Puerto Rican study in her review? Is it because DuPont, owner of Protein Technologies International, is the leading manufacturer of soy protein isolate?

Or is it because her review was sponsored by the Infant Formula Council? Or because Nutrition Reviews, which published her whitewash, is funded by industry giants, including Pillsbury, Hershey Foods, Kellogg, Roche, General Mills, Kraft, Campbell Soup, Monsanto, Coca-Cola, Cargill, Heinz, Nabisco, Proctor and Gamble and Pepsi-Cola?

An interesting finding of the Puerto Rican study was that consumption of milk was negatively correlated with early maturation, which means that it might be protective. Whole unprocessed milk may go a long way to mitigating some of the adverse effects of soy formula. We also know of one case in which early onset of puberty was reversed by treatment with low-potency desiccated thryoid.8

References

Marcia E Herman-Giddens, et al "Secondary Sexual Characteristics and Menses in Young Girls Seen in Office Practice: A Study from the Pediatric Research in Office Settings Network," Pediatrics, April 1997, Vol 99, No 4, Pages 505-512
Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly, #263, The Wingspread Statement, Part 1, December 11, 1991; Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski and John Peterson Myers, Our Stolen Future, Little Brown and Company, London, 1996.
L W Freni-Titulaer, "Premature Thelarche in Puerto Rico, A search for environmental factors," American Journal of Diseases of Children, December 1986, Vol 140, No 12, Pages 1263-1267
K D Setchell et al, "Isoflavone content of infant formulas and the metabolic fate of these early phytoestrogens in early life," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, December 1998, Supplement Pages 1453S-1461S
C Irvine, et al, "The Potential Adverse Effects of Soybean Phytoestrogens in Infant Feeding," New Zealand Medical Journal, May 24, 1995, Page 318.
K O Klein, "Isoflavones, Soy-based Infant Formulas and Relevance to Endocrine Function," Nutrition Reviews, July 1998, Vol 56, No 7, Pages 193-204.
Personal communication, Richard James. See www.soyonlineservice.co.nz.
Stephen Langer, Solved: The Riddle of Illness, 1994, Keats Publishing, New Canaan, CT, Page 52.

[尼古拉前执事]

Fact Sheet #37
June 2000

Consumer Concerns About Hormones in Food

This fact sheet addresses some of the consumer concerns that have been brought to BCERF regarding health effects of hormones used by the meat and dairy industries. Evidence available so far, though not conclusive, does not link hormone residues in meat or milk with any human health effect.

What are hormones?

Hormones are chemicals that are produced naturally in the bodies of all animals, including humans. They are chemical messages released into the blood by hormone-producing organs that travel to and affect different parts of the body. Hormones may be produced in small amounts, but they control important body functions such as growth, development and reproduction.

Hormones can have different chemistry. They can be steroids or proteins. Steroid hormones are active in the body when eaten. For example, birth control pills are steroid hormones and can be taken orally. In contrast, protein hormones are broken down in the stomach, and lose their ability to act in the body when eaten. Therefore, ordinarily, protein hormones need to be injected into the body to have an effect. For example, insulin is a protein hormone. Diabetic patients need to be injected with insulin for treatment.

Why are hormones used in food production?

Certain hormones can make young animals gain weight faster. They help reduce the waiting time and the amount of feed eaten by an animal before slaughter in meat industries. In dairy cows, hormones can be used to increase milk production. Thus, hormones can increase the profitability of the meat and dairy industries.

Why are consumers concerned about hormones in foods?

While a variety of hormones are produced by our bodies and are essential for normal development of healthy tissues, synthetic steroid hormones used as pharmaceutical drugs, have been found to affect cancer risk. For example, diethylstilbestrol (DES), a synthetic estrogen drug used in the 1960s was withdrawn from use after it was found to increase the risk of vaginal cancer in daughters of treated women. Lifetime exposure to natural steroid hormone estrogen is also associated with an increased risk for breast cancer (see BCERF Fact Sheet #09 Estrogen and Breast Cancer Risk: What is the Relationship?). Hence, consumers are concerned about whether they are being exposed to hormones used to treat animals, and whether these hormones affect human health. We try to address this complex issue based on scientific evidence that is currently available.

History of hormone use in food production

As early as the 1930s, it was realized that cows injected with material drawn from bovine (cow) pituitary glands (hormone secreting organ) produced more milk. Later, the bovine growth hormone (bGH) from the pituitary glands was found to be responsible for this effect. However, at that time, technology did not exist to harvest enough of this material for large-scale use in animals. In the 1980s, it became possible to produce large quantities of pure bGH by using recombinant DNA technology. In 1993, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH), also known as bovine somatotropin (rbST) for use in dairy cattle. Recent estimates by the manufacturer of this hormone indicate that 30% of the cows in the United States (US) may be treated with rbGH.

The female sex hormone estrogen was also shown to affect growth rates in cattle and poultry in the 1930s. Once the chemistry of estrogen was understood, it became possible to make the hormone synthetically in large amounts. Synthetic estrogens started being used to increase the size of cattle and chickens in the early 1950s. DES was one of the first synthetic estrogens made and used commercially in the US to fatten chickens. DES was also used as a drug in human medicine. DES was found to cause cancer and its use in food production was phased out in the late 1970s.

What are the different hormones used now by the meat and dairy industries?

There are six different kinds of steroid hormones that are currently approved by FDA for use in food production in the US: estradiol, progesterone, testosterone, zeranol, trenbolone acetate, and melengestrol acetate. Estradiol and progesterone are natural female sex hormones; testosterone is the natural male sex hormone; zeranol, trenbolone acetate and melengesterol acetate are synthetic growth promoters (hormone-like chemicals that can make animals grow faster). Currently, federal regulations allow these hormones to be used on growing cattle and sheep, but not on poultry (chickens, turkeys, ducks) or hogs (pigs). The above hormones are not as useful in increasing weight gain of poultry or hogs.

As mentioned earlier, FDA allows the use of the protein hormone rbGH to increase milk production in dairy cattle. This protein hormone is not used on beef cattle.

How are the hormones introduced into the animals?

Steroid hormones are usually released into the animal from a pellet (ear implant) that is put under the skin of the ear. The ears of the animals are thrown away at slaughter. Improper use of pellet implants in other parts of the animal can result in higher levels of hormone residues to remain in the edible meat. Federal regulations prohibit their use in this manner. Melengestrol acetate is also available in a form that can be added to animal feed.

Dairy cattle may be injected under the skin with rbGH. This hormone is available in packages of single dose injections to reduce chances of accidental overdose.

Do federal agencies monitor for the presence of these hormones in food?

Estradiol, progesterone and testosterone are sex hormones that are made naturally by animals. No regulatory monitoring of these hormones is possible, since it is not possible to separate or tell the difference between the hormones used for treatment from those made by the animal's own body. However, it is possible to detect residues of zeranol and trembolone acetate in the animal's meat. FDA has set the tolerance levels for these hormones. A tolerance is the maximum amount of a particular residue that may be permitted in or on food (see BCERF Fact Sheet #25 on Pesticide Residue Monitoring and Food Safety). The Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) monitors meat from cattle for zeranol residues. FSIS also monitors meats for DES residues from any illegal use (DES use is no longer permitted). In response to concern about cases of early puberty in Puerto Rico described below, a large number of meat samples were tested for hormone residues in the mid- to late 1980s. No zeranol or DES residues were found in the meat samples in this survey.

Do hormones remain in the milk or meat of treated animals?

The levels of naturally produced hormones vary from animal to animal, and a range in these levels is known to be normal. Because it is not possible to differentiate between the hormones produced naturally by the animal and those used to treat the animal, it is difficult to determine exactly how much of the hormone used for treatment remains in the meat or the milk. Studies indicate that if correct treatment and slaughter procedures are followed, the levels of these hormones may be slightly higher in the treated animal's meat or milk, but are still within the normal range of natural variation known to occur in untreated animals. Scientists are currently trying to develop better methods to measure steroid hormone residues left in edible meat from a treated animal.

Can steroid hormones in meat affect the age of puberty for girls?

Early puberty in girls has been found to be associated with a higher risk for breast cancer. Height, weight, diet, exercise, and family history have all been found to influence age of puberty (see BCERF Fact Sheet #08, Childhood Life Events and the Risk of Breast Cancer). Steroid hormones in food were suspected to cause early puberty in girls in some reports. However, exposure to higher than natural levels of steroid hormones through hormone-treated meat or poultry has never been documented. Large epidemiological studies have not been done to see whether or not early puberty in developing girls is associated with having eaten growth hormone-treated foods.

A concern about an increase in cases of girls reaching puberty or menarche early (at age eight or younger) in Puerto Rico, led to an investigation in the early 1980s by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Samples of meat and chicken from Puerto Rico were tested for steroid hormone residues. One laboratory found a chicken sample from a local market to have higher than normal level of estrogen. Also, residues of zeranol were reported in the blood of some of the girls who had reached puberty early. However, these results could not be verified by other laboratories. Following CDC's investigation, USDA tested 150 to 200 beef, poultry and milk samples from Puerto Rico in 1985, and found no residues of DES, zeranol or estrogen in these samples.

In another study in Italy, steroid hormone residues in beef and poultry in school meals were suspected as the cause of breast enlargement in very young girls and boys. However, the suspect beef and poultry samples were not available to test for the presence of hormones. Without proof that exposure to higher levels of steroid hormones occurred through food, it is not possible to conclude whether or not eating hormone-treated meat or poultry caused the breast enlargement in these cases.

Can eating meat from hormone-treated animals affect breast cancer risk?

Evidence does not exist to answer this question. The amount of steroid hormone that is eaten through meat of a treated animal is negligible compared to what the human body produces each day. The breast cancer risk of women who eat meat from hormone-treated animals has not been compared with the risk of women who eat meat from untreated animals.

Can drinking milk, or eating dairy products from hormone-treated animals affect breast cancer risk?

Once again, evidence does not exist to answer this question. Use of rbGH for dairy cattle has been in practice in US for only six to seven years. Breast cancer can take many years to develop. It is too early to study the breast cancer risk of women who drink milk and eat milk products from hormone-treated animals.

Can hormones that remain in milk affect human health?

Scientists at FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine have reviewed the studies submitted by the manufacturers of rbGH. FDA scientists have concluded that eating foods with slightly higher levels of rbGH would not affect human health. This is because the amount of rbGH that is in milk or milk products as a result of treatment of the animals is insignificant compared to the amount of growth hormone that is naturally produced by our bodies. Also, rbGH is a protein hormone and is digested into smaller fragments (peptides and amino acids) when eaten. The rbGH hormone used on dairy cattle is effective in promoting growth in cows, but does not work in humans. Scientists know that rbGH is not recognized as a hormone by human cells.

There are gaps in our knowledge about whether rbGH used to treat dairy cattle can cause indirect effects. These gaps lead to uncertainties and debates, some of which are addressed below.

What do we know about growth factors in milk of treated animals?

The wholesomeness of milk is not affected by rbGH treatment. However, some subtle changes do take place in the treated animal. The growth hormone typically acts by triggering the cells to make other chemicals, called growth factors. These growth factors actually cause the increase in growth rate and milk production. Milk from rbGH-treated cattle has been found to have slightly higher levels of the naturally produced protein called insulin-dependent growth factor-1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is a protein, and is digested into smaller pieces in the stomach.

Scientists at FDA have considered the evidence from studies of cancer risk in people who have naturally high body levels of IGF-1. Higher levels of IGF-1 in blood have been found in women with breast cancer compared to women without breast cancer in the Harvard-based Nurses' Health Study. Scientists are investigating if IGF-1 is just present at higher levels in breast cancer patients or if it has a role in increasing the risk for the disease. In laboratory studies, breast cancer cells growing on a plastic dish, grow at a faster rate when bathed in a solution containing IGF-1. However, IGF-1 also plays an important role in helping normal cells grow. Hence, from these few studies, we cannot conclude whether or not IGF-1 increases breast cancer risk.

FDA scientists have concluded that IGF-1 in milk is unlikely to present any human food safety concern for the following reasons: 1) IGF-1 levels in cow's milk from untreated animals vary in nature, depending on the number of calves and the lactation stage; 2) IGF-1 is also present in human breast milk, at levels higher than in hormone-treated cow's milk; 3) IGF-1 in milk is not expected to act as a growth factor in people who drink it because it gets digested in the stomach; 4) IGF-1 needs to be injected into the blood to have a growth-promoting effect; and 5) increased IGF-1 levels in food are not expected to result in higher blood levels of IGF-1 in humans who eat the food.

Concern about milk-related allergies

A detailed discussion of this topic is beyond the scope of this fact sheet. A brief outline of the issue is presented here, along with references for more information. Digested or broken down fragments of proteins absorbed through the stomach can cause the immune system to produce antibodies, which sometimes can lead to milk-related allergies. There have been studies done to investigate whether the immune system can react to fragments of rbGH and IGF-1 absorbed through the stomach. Reviewers of these studies at Health Canada (the Canadian counterpart to FDA) expressed a concern that in one study, some of the laboratory rats that were fed high levels of rbGH for 90 days developed antibodies against it (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/archives/rbst). Scientists at FDA evaluated these studies in rats and concluded that only animals that were fed a very large amount of rbGH in food produced antibodies against it. Such large amounts of rbGH are not expected to occur in the milk that humans drink ("Report on the Food and Drug Administration's Review of the Safety of Bovine Somatotropin" available at: http://www.fda.gov/cvm/; a copy of this report can be requested by calling: 310-574-1755).

Studies have also looked at whether IGF-1 fed to laboratory rats and digested in the stomach can affect the immune system. No immune effects were observed in these studies, but the animals were fed IGF-1 for only two weeks. No studies have been done on the effects of feeding rats or other experimental animals with IGF-1 over longer periods of time.

Are hormone-treated animals healthy?

There is a concern that because of increased milking, hormone-treated cows may become more prone to infection of the udders, called mastitis. This could lead to more antibiotics being used to treat the cows, in turn leading to more residues of antibiotics to remain in the milk. Frequent exposure to antibiotic residues through milk or dairy products is a health concern for people over the long term. In the normal body, there are bacteria that live in the gut and mouth and help in the digestion of food in the gut. These "friendly" bacteria do not normally cause disease since the immune system keeps them in check. However, if the immune system is weak, these "friendly" bacteria can invade tissues and cause infection. Bacteria in the normal body that come across small amounts of antibiotics frequently, can develop ways to survive the antibiotics and become "antibiotic resistant." In cases of infection and illness, it then becomes more difficult to control such resistant bacteria with the available antibiotics.

Some increase in incidence of antibiotic residues was observed in cow's milk following the use of rbGH. At the same time as rbGH started being used, some of the major dairy states in US switched over to a new and improved method to test for antibiotic residues. It is difficult to determine whether the increase in incidence of antibiotic residues in milk was due to increased use, or better testing methods. New York State (NYS) was one of the states that had not changed its method to test for antibiotic residues in milk at that time. The incidence of antibiotic residues in milk from NYS was not found to be higher after the approval of rbGH use. This suggests that the increased incidence of antibiotic residues observed in some states may have been due to better testing methods rather than an increase in use of antibiotics for treatment of mastitis. An Expert Committee at FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine has concluded that while rbGH use may cause a slight increase in mastitis, dairy management practices that are currently in use should prevent any increase in antibiotic residues in milk.

Are growth hormones used elsewhere in the world?

The debate on whether growth hormones should or should not be used for food production has become a very political issue. In 1989, the European Community (now European Union) issued a ban on all meat from animals treated with steroid growth hormones, which is still in effect. The use of steroid hormones for beef cattle is permitted in Canada.

Countries within the European Union do not allow the use of the protein hormone rbGH, for dairy cattle. In 1999, the Canadian government refused approval for the sale of rbGH for dairy cattle, based on concerns about the health effects including mastitis in treated animals.

Conclusions

Studies done so far do not provide evidence to state that hormone residues in meat or dairy products cause any human health effects. However, a conclusion on lack of human health effect can only be made after large-scale studies compare the health of people who eat meat or dairy products from hormone-treated animals, to people who eat a similar diet, but from untreated animals.

Where is more research needed?

Some of the consumer concerns in this fact sheet cannot be answered conclusively without further studies:

Exposure to hormones in meat was suspected as the cause for early puberty in girls in Puerto Rico and Italy, but was never verified. To conclusively answer the question, large-scale epidemiological studies would be needed to compare the age of puberty in girls who eat meat from hormone-treated animals to those who eat meat from untreated animals. Such studies would need to make sure that other known influences that affect the age of puberty in girls are not playing a role.
Short-term studies in laboratory rats have not indicated a concern about milk-related allergies or immune effects from exposure to rbGH or IGF-1 in milk or dairy products. However, short-term studies cannot be used to rule out all possibilities of any immune, or unexpected health effects after long-term exposure. Studies in laboratory animals on effects of life-long exposure to milk from rbGH-treated cows may help answer this question.
Some healthy diet tips that also help reduce exposure to hormones used in food production

While currently available evidence does not indicate a link between eating meat, milk or dairy products from hormone-treated animals and any health effects, adopting some known healthy diet habits (see below) can help reduce exposure to hormones used in meat, poultry and dairy production.

Eat a varied diet, rich in fruits, grains and vegetables.
Eat meats in moderation, well cooked, but not charred.
Eat more lean muscle meat, less liver and fat.
Back to the top

Prepared by Renu Gandhi, Ph.D. BCERF Research Associate
and Suzanne M. Snedeker, Ph.D., Research Project Leader, BCERF

When reproducing this material, credit the authors and the Program on Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors in New York State.

Last update 05.02.03

[尼古拉前执事]

Why puberty now begins at seven
By Michelle Roberts
BBC News health reporter

Whether it is sprouting hair, budding breasts or a breaking voice, the signs that herald puberty can be distressing and difficult to cope with.
In the western world there is much evidence children are reaching puberty at younger and younger ages - some girls at the age of seven.

The reasons for this trend are unknown. But several theories have been suggested.

And Swedish scientists at the Karolinska Institute aim to find out by tackling the puzzle from different angles.

Precocious puberty

It is accepted that the normal age for a girl to begin to develop the first signs of puberty is 10 and above. Boys develop slightly later, generally at eleven-and-a-half.

However, the age appears to have been decreasing in developed countries.

In 1990, the first signs of puberty were around the age of eight for girls - the whole process taking two years to complete.

Now, according to researchers, some enter puberty as young as seven.

We believe that the obesity explosion we have seen in the US is important
Researcher Professor Olle Söder
Boys, too, say some experts, are entering puberty at an earlier stage, albeit still slightly later than girls.

But it is unclear whether this is a simply a shift of the norm, or if more children are experiencing a phenomenon called precocious puberty - when they develop the first signs of puberty abnormally early.

Controversial theories have been put forward, including watching too much television could distort the hormonal balance of adolescents and push many of them into early puberty.

Psychologists have said young girls who have close relationships with their fathers might enter puberty later than girls with distant or non-existent links.

Now 12 European teams are carrying out research as part of a three-year project to get to the root of the problem, looking at the most likely culprits.

Calories

Professor Olle Söder from the Karolinska Institute is leading one study which will look at whether rising obesity rates are to blame.

His team will study whether animals that are overfed produce more of the male and female sexual hormones that trigger puberty.

"We believe that this has a nutritional background and that the obesity explosion we have seen in the US, and which is coming to Europe, is important," he said.

Colleagues in Germany will gather data on around 50,000 children to look at whether those who are plumper reach puberty earlier.

A London group will look at strains of mice renowned for early or late onset of puberty and see whether they can modify this with diet.

Researchers have shown that overfed and rapidly growing newborn babies go on to reach puberty earlier than other babies.

Also, adoption studies show undernourished children who have catch-up growth after being placed with more affluent families have earlier onset of puberty than siblings who remain in their home place.

Pesticides and pollution

"Another thing that might be important is environmental factors that mimic hormones, such as pesticides," said Professor Söder.

A team of Belgian researchers pointed the finger at a chemical derivative of the controversial pesticide DDT.

Jean-Pierre Bourguignon and colleagues from the University of Liege found children who had emigrated from countries such as India and Colombia were 80 times more likely to start puberty unusually young.

Three-quarters of these immigrant children with "precocious" puberty had high levels of a chemical derivative of DDT in their blood.

However, there is no firm evidence. Some of the European researchers will probe this further.

Equally, he said it might be down to genetics.

Genes

A team of researchers in the UK and the US recently pinpointed a gene that they believe controls puberty through the regulation of a protein called GPR54.

The US scientists, from Massachusetts General Hospital, found that the gene that codes for GPR54 was mutated in all members of a Saudi Arabian family who failed to reach puberty.

At the same time, scientists at the UK biotechnology company Paradigm Therapeutics contacted the US doctors to tell them they had bred mice that had failed to reach puberty.

They had "knocked out" the gene for GPR54 in these mice.

Regardless of whether it is down to one factor or many, it is not clear whether children entering puberty earlier is a problem, said Professor Söder.

Some say girls who reach puberty earlier are more likely to drop out of school and have lower incomes.

Data shows that they are also more likely to become mums earlier.

With more and more women putting off having a baby until later life, this might be a good thing and help reverse trends of top heavy ageing population, said Professor Söder.

But equally, it might mean more women reach the menopause earlier too and miss their chance to become a mum, he said.

Either way, "it will have a societal impact," he warned.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/h ... 530743.stm

Published: 2005/05/15 23:08:01 GMT

[joasia]

I stand corrected.

And did the girl in this article undergo the same circumstances? Was she exposed by the same chemical effects?

[尼古拉前执事]

I am not sure. The story just broke today, but I imagine over the next week or so the story will get more in-depth coverage.

[joasia]

I have skimmed through your articles. I mean skimmed because when I was posting you had already posted so many articles, but I know that it will be a great benefit to all who read it.

My main concern is if the girl in your initial article falls under these conditions. There would have to be a back up report for that since I still believe that there can be foul-play involved. Does this particular girl have all the symptoms of the things described in your articles. I only ask it this way because the article can be fictious. I see that girls can develop early, but the question is whether this girl falls under that category. Do you have evidence of her physical state? I say this only because I don't want to fall into a pool of ignorant believers.

You have the medical back up, but does it apply to this girl? I want to seperate the enquiry minds from those that actually have a finger on the truth. Basically, I want to make sure that this story is true.