OK I heard this on the radio the other day and I’m guessing its proly B.S. But the way the guy put it sounded half way logical.
The explanation was this: Hormones used to make cattle grow bigger and faster are also making the women who grew up eating said beef wind up with bigger breast.
So is it true or is it just wishful thinking?
Could be.
I’ve also heard the argument that hormones in beef are making little girls hit puberty earlier and earlier, too.
Of course, little girls of our generation also have better nutrition, better exercise and better health care than those of previous generations.
YMMV
Was that a caller or the host. I heard a caller say that we (esp. kids) are growing bigger, not just fatter because of all the hormones.
I Think kids are getting bigger faster but I don’t know that’s the reason, but at the very least there seems to be people who think it’s part of the reason.
runs off to buy beef stock
I would question better nutrition and exercise, and health in this pill crazy world where children are drugged when they disrupt the class.
Nutrition: more junk food - schools have candy vending mach and soda in the cafeterias. Sugar cereals have taken over for the more fibrous ones esp. for kids.
Exercise - everything is remote control and kids rarely walk to school due to safety concerns - I use to ride my bike to a friend’s house 3-4 miles one way before I was 10 - now the parents would be cited for child endangerment for letting their kid do that.
Health care - ok for the infant but once they reach school and the teacher doesn’t like the way that student acts they suggest (around here at least and it has made the news several times) having a doctor put him on riddlen(sp - but you know what I mean) - which is similar to cocaine
Is this not part of the same rumour that says oestrogen in plastic food packaging is homogenising fish and causing drastic drops in sperm count in men? Due to the increase in plastic packaging for convenience food & sandwiches men will no longer be able to produce sperm in three generations time. Or so it goes…
k2dave, I think “better nutrition” is a relative term. You’re saying that kids nowadays don’t get an optimal diet for low heart attack risk, and that’s true, however kids get plenty of calories growing up. Kids of earlier generations often simply didn’t have enough to eat. So today they grow faster, reach puberty earlier, and obesity is much more prevalent than it was when I was growing up (which was really not that long ago, I’m 41). There is probably something to the observation that girls’ breasts are larger, but I think it’s mostly due to kids’ being fatter. The “hormones in milk/beef” story has been thoroughly debunked.
The “estrogen-like chemicals in food causing low sperm count” story has also been studied and found lacking. First, there’s no reliable evidence that sperm counts are declining, and second, food is naturally chock-full of chemicals that are much more hormonally active than the pthalates that are used to soften plastic.
actually there are several articles based on a study published early last year that says chemicals are causing early puberty.
http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/02/02152001/earlypuberty_41939.asp
http://www.nurseweek.com/news/00-12/1213pube.asp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1333000/1333875.stm
or run a search on google for “puberty chemical early”
rabbit, there is still work being done in this area, but from what I’ve read, the hypothesis that “endocrine disruptors” cause early puberty, or any other human effects, is pretty weak. For example, in the articles you posted, a) the study that showed that girls are reaching puberty earlier was controversial in that it didn’t objectively measure anything, and in particular could confound obesity effects and early puberty, and b) the study that looked for elevated levels of DDE in precocious-puberty girls did not compare them to a control group(!).
There have been pretty well-funded groups trying to find any effects of Hormonally Active Agents for several years now, and they just don’t have convincing evidence to show for it. Add to this that it’s just not a very plausible argument in the first place (because of all the natural HAAs in our diet), and I just can’t see this idea ever going anywhere…
The drug is “Ritalin”, and of course its similar to cocaine – they’re both stimulants. Ritalin doesn’t produce a “high”, and its longer action (cocaine’s high only lasts about 30 minutes) makes it far less compulsively abusable. Say what you will about giving Ritalin to children, but don’t drag up the “it’s just cocaine! ooooh!” scare tactic – leave that one to the Scientologists.
Back to the topic at hand, the hormone in question is probably bovine growth hormone. I’d question claims that this is “making women’s breasts bigger” for several reasons: for one, BGH isn’t present in beef products sold to consumers. I believe this is a requirement of USDA approval, and strictly enforced. Secondly, even if it were, there’s no evidence (that I know of) that BGH reacts with the human endocrine system in any way. If it did something that increased breast size, it’d probably be something like increasing estrogen levels. Increased levels of estrogen would likely cause a lot of other endocrine issues, which would be noticed by the medical community. Again, as far as I know, this hasn’t been observed.
The growth hormones given to cattle don’t directly affect the growth of humans. They are not recognized by the human body and are ignored.
However, there are reasons to question the use of bovine growth hormone. This article gives a good overview.
looks downward
well…I’m not seeing any results… :rolleyes:
This theory could be tested by comparing the age of puberty in the US and the EU, since the nutrition, health care, etc…are probably similar while hormoned meat isn’t allowed in Europe. So, if the age of puberty is similar in both, hormones in meat probably don’t play any part. If they are different, it doesn’t tell much, since tons of other explanations for the difference could probably be found…
(I suppose it would be more complicated with breast size, though I’m pretty certain a lot of men would agree to conduct such a comparative study… 
http://healthanswers.telstra.com/FeaturedArticles/default.asp?articleid=421
In Australia - no growth hormones used for 30 years, but age of puberty onset dropped anyway. There are multiple factors involved, not the least of which is increased obesity. Fat tissue produces estrogen. Estrogen triggers development of secondary sexual characteristics. (note that puberty onset and age of menarche are not the same thing - this research has to do with age of breast development and pubic hair growth - there’s more development going on pre-menarche perhaps?)
Well, I heard the same crock in the 70’s, only it was the estrogen in chicken…Looking at the bosomi of the locals, I’d say it had just the opposite effect.