Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
hormones in our agricultural food and the adverse effects it has on the animals and the human consumers. The writer provides an outline of the effect the hormones have both physically and politically on the consumer and the nation's that support the use of hormones. The writer also presents evidence of the health problems hormones are thought to cause as well. There were four sources used to complete this paper.
As the world becomes more crowded the demand for fast growing resources including food increase. The use of growth hormone in cattle has sparked a worldwide controversy as several nation's wrestle with trade organizations mandates against what they believe the hormone treated cows can cause by way of health problems.
The most common hormone used today in the cow industry is Bovine Growth Hormone, which is also referred to as BGH. This hormone is a genetically engineered hormone. It is administered through the use of injections and the injections are given to dairy cows. This is so that the dairy cows would increase their milk production because of the way the hormone speeds that process (History of Monsanto (http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/genetic/bghback.htm).The use of this hormone was approved for use in the United States but had not been approved for use in Europe or Canada. This sparked a worldwide controversy in the export of product from the U.S. that had been treated with the injected hormone. England threatened a full ban on beef and dairy products coming into its nation from the United States with any product that proved to have residual growth hormone detected in it during random testing. The U.S. answered by complaining to the World Trade Organization which is charged with mandating the disagreements between its members. England pointed to a previous study indicating that the hormone caused cancer in rats. The study extrapolated according to the English into having the same effect on cows (History of Monsanto (http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/genetic/bghback.htm).
The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved BGH for use in dairy cows in 1993. The approval process was riddled with conflicts of interest, however, as some former Monsanto employees who went to work for the FDA, oversaw the approval process and then went back to work for Monsanto. Although Monsanto claims that BGH is one of the most thoroughly examined drugs in U.S. history, BGH was never tested in the long-term for (chronic) human health effects. It is a generally accepted principle in science that two years of testing is the minimal time for long-term health studies. BGH was tested for only 90 days on 30 rats (History of Monsanto (http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/genetic/bghback.htm).This short-term rat study was submitted to the FDA but was never published. The FDA refused to allow anyone outside the administration to review the raw data from this study, saying that this would "irreparably harm" Monsanto. Monsanto has continued to refuse to allow open scientific peer review of the 90-day study (History of Monsanto (http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/genetic/bghback.htm).This linchpin study of cancer and BGH has never been subjected to scrutiny by the American or international scientific community (History of Monsanto (http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/genetic/bghback.htm)."
Canada joined England in a rare move against the U.S. use of the hormone and sent a stern letter from its Health department in 1998 alleging there has been to little known about the long-term affects (History of Monsanto (http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/genetic/bghback.htm).
Monsanto's secret was safe when the FDA published scientific data about rBGH before it approved the drug for use in the United States. In the August 24, 1990 edition of the prestigious journal Science, the FDA said the results of all studies were negative - that is, there were no harmful affect. (Judith C. Juskevich and C. Greg Guyer, Bovine Growth Hormone: Human Food Safety Evaluation, Science, Vol. 249, August, 24, 1990, pp.875-884) The scientific paper, with Monsanto's permission, did refer to the 90-day study. No mention was made of antibodies and lesions (History of Monsanto (http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/genetic/bghback.htm).In fact, in scientific terms, the FDA declared that "oral toxicity studies have demonstrated that BGH is not orally active in rats." In layman's terms that means that the drug had no affect on the rats that consumed it. Obviously, this statement is blatantly false (History of Monsanto (http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/genetic/bghback.htm)."
Some scientists believe that the use of BGH increases levels of IGF-1 and that is not destroyed in the pasteurizing process and is instead transferred to the humans who consume the product. Those who are…[continue]
"Hormones In Our Agricultural Food And The" (2003, May 04) Retrieved October 21, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/hormones-in-our-agricultural-food-and-the-149377
"Hormones In Our Agricultural Food And The" 04 May 2003. Web.21 October. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/hormones-in-our-agricultural-food-and-the-149377>
"Hormones In Our Agricultural Food And The", 04 May 2003, Accessed.21 October. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/hormones-in-our-agricultural-food-and-the-149377
A farmer in each year can produce enough food to feed a hundred people, according to Pollan (2001), but this productivity comes with a heavy price: "The modern industrial farmer cannot grow that much food without large quantities of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, machinery, and fuel. This expensive set of 'inputs,' as they are called, saddles the farmer with debt, jeopardizes his health, erodes his soil and ruins its fertility,
Organic Food Today's world is becoming increasingly more complex and fast-paced, which has caused many people to adopt a catch-as-catch-can attitude towards their food. We have become accustomed to receiving things instantly, hence the popularity of fast food restaurants, and we have also become accustomed to receiving larger portions of food. Food today is more processed, refined, pre-packaged, and instantly available than it ever has been at any time in
217+). It is not only the consumer, then, who might be affected by cost; producers also might be reluctant to grown or process organic foods unless they believed that consumers would continue to be willing to pay the price of the organic foods. Their study focuses "on the benefits associated with segregation and labelling strategies that are commonly gauged by the size of premiums consumers are willing to pay
Rachel Carson, she asserts that water is our most precious natural resource and goes on to state that "most of the earth's abundant water is not usable for agriculture, industry, or human consumption because of its heavy load of sea salts" (1) and therefore "in the midst of this plenty we are in want" (1). Okay, so let's examine this particular argument; first she says that the earth's abundant water
Borderless Society A history of a typical American meal When a typical consumer purchases a rib-eye steak for dinner, he or she will pay far less than his or her grandfather did for the same cut of meat. This is because of the efficiencies generated by the commercial meat industry. While the cow will begin its life in a manner similar to that of cows of the past -- by the
21st This week, readings focus organic agriculture. Organic agriculture a solution costs industrial agriculture… In addition, read choices eating local ( possibly supporting industrial agriculture) versus eating organic ( possibly supporting a farmer Chile). Department of Agriculture contends that organic food amounted to 2-3% of the American market in 2010 (Kluger). There is an argument revolving around the issue of organic options vs. industrial food on a local basis,
Cheap: Chapter 8 Cheap, a Summary of Chapter 8:"Cheap Eats" Ellen Ruppel Shell takes a critical look at some of the intended and unintended consequences of efforts to produce inexpensive food in Chapter 8 of her book Cheap. Shell argues that our penchant for saving money on our diets is in reality more costly because this practice promotes factory farming. Shell warns that food grown on the factory model is in reality