The Epoch Times posted a multipage article with several hypotheses as to why girls were reaching puberty earlier. Having experienced several sections of the United States which exhibited great differences in sexual maturity of girls in the 1960's, I wanted to add to the information by discussing what California teachers I knew in my Los Angeles school unanimously thought was the cause. Following is the letter I sent to the Epoch Times "Mind & Body" editor.
Dec 16, 2022, 18:27 EST
Mind & Body Editor
Dear Editor Mind & Body
Reference The Epoch Times, 12 December 2022, "Why Are Girls Reaching Puberty Earlier?"
None of the comments in the article written by Martha Rosenburg addressed what I consider the real cause of girls maturing at younger ages.
I grew up in the American Midwest state of Ohio. After graduating from Hiram College, I left Ohio to teach General Science at the Alexander Fleming Junior High School in Lomita, CA within the Los Angeles City School District.
In the classrooms, the first thing I noticed was the physical attributes of California teenage girls. In Ohio, junior high school girls ages 12-14 did not have breast growth like the California girls who looked like 20-25 year old women. It was a shock to see young girls look in body shape at least 10 years older than girls their own age in the rest of the United States. Not only were the breasts enlarged, they had wider hips than Ohio girls.
When discussing the appearance of girls at lunch one day with other teachers, I asked, "Why are all the girls here so advanced physically? They all look like 25-year old women."
With no hesitation, the answers from the other teachers were immediate. No one had to take even a second to reflect upon what they were going to say. Out of everyone's mouth came the reply in one form or another, "It's the growth hormones that are put into cattle to make them mature earlier." They went on to tell me that the growth hormones put into beef were initially used in California to make cattle grow faster and for heifers to more milk. They suggested farmers in other states would soon be adding growth hormones.
At that time, anyone who consumed California beef consumed growth hormones. The teachers discussed that in the lunchroom for several days. The fast-food businesses were beginning to increase in quantity and sell hamburgers to children who normally ate little beef in their diet due to economic situations.
FIRST DEMONSTRATION OF GROWTH HORMONES IN CATTLE
According to A.P. Raun, the first demonstration of growth stimulation in sheep and cattle with hormone supplements took place in 1947 using diethylstilbestrol (DES) in heifers as a tablet subcutaneous implant. Side effects of vulvar swelling, riding, and mammary development were observed. These programs demonstrated reduced carcass grade and increased muscle leaness. By 1954, DES was orally administered for cattle as approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and used for growing-finishing cattle. It was quickly adopted.
Low DES residues, along with reported adenocarcinoma in daughters of mothers treated with prescription DES during pregnancy led the Food and Drug Administration to remove the oral DES use for cattle in 1972. This led to many other growth stimulation products for cattle.
Hormones naturally produced by humans result in behavioral, biological, morphological and physiological Changes. With the growing population wanting and needing more animal products, it was a normal progression for scientists to experiment with growth hormones for other animals. They needed to do so without safety problems through human consumption or by the cattle. Studies involved developments of hormones to determine dosages and format for best results and lowered cost of production.
The use of thyroid hormones produced increased milk production in cattle. This author wonders if the thyroid problems of 80-million Americans are the result of the thyroid hormones fed to cattle. Milk, cheese, and dairy products would all carry the hormones to the public. When in 1943 the tests involved poultry, producers were elated with a threefold increase in the fat content of the cockerels breasts and leg muscles by 8 weeks. This resulted in application of growth hormones in broilers by 1947.
Synthesized as an oral estrogen, diethylstilbestrol (DES) was first used in humans to prevent miscarriages. By 1954, researchers found that DES in food for oral applications to cattle increased the cattle growth by 35% with no side effects and dosage control was easier. The patent for DES as an oral growth hormone was filed by Iowa State College and W. Burroughs in 1953 and granted in 1956. This is the era of the Agricultural Products Division of Eli Lilly and Co. Inc. which was manufacturing DES under an exclusive 5-year license for Iowa State College. Since that time, pharmaceutical scientists have developed new drugs and combination of drugs for animal growth hormones.
By 1956, after approval of oral DES, an estimated six million cattle were being fed the product. Pfizer obtained FDA approval for DES implants for cattle in 1957. Eventually, 80-95% of fed cattle received DES in some form. The FDA prosecuted cattle feeders who did not use DES correctly. They banned all use of DES in cattle production in 1979.
Since 1979 there have been other growth hormones approved for use in cattle production. Some of the early anabolic, or steroid type agents, include:
Silastic estradiol implant for cattle (1982)
Estradiol benzoate/progesterone implants for calves (1984)
Trenbolone acetate implants for cattle (1987)
Estradiol/trenbolone acetate for steers (1991
Bovine somatotropin for lactating dairy cows (1993
Estradiol/trenbolone acetate implants for heifers (1994
72-mg zeranol implants for cattle (1995
Estradiol/trenbolone acetate implants for stocker cattle (1996).
The latest chemical use approved in April 2022 is bovine somatrotropin (bST) to increase bovine milk production.
The FDA approves an animal drug for food-producing animals only after information and/or studies have shown that the food from the treated animals is safe for people to eat, and that the drug does not harm treated animals, or the environment. The drug also must be effective, meaning that it works as intended. The labeling for animal drug products provides all instructions for safe and effective use and has been approved by FDA.
The FDA publishes public documents (Freedom of Information Summaries) on its website that summarize the information that FDA used to determine that the drug is safe for the treated animals, the animal products (edible tissues such as meat and milk) are safe for humans to eat, and that the product is effective.
"Impact of Implants on Performance and Carcass Value of Beef Cattle." P-957. May 1997. Oklahoma Agric. Exp. Sta., Oklahoma State University, Stillwater.
Marcus, A.I. 1994. Cancer from beef: DES, Federal food regulation, and consumer confidence. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Raun, A.P. and J.W. McAskill. 1965. Study of the effects of two levels of stilbestrol from dry and liquid premixes on feedlot performance of fattening steers. Expt. CA-108, Eli Lilly and Co., Inc., Greenfield, IN.
The answer I received so far follows:
Eliza Lin (The Epoch Times)
Dec 17, 2022, 16:03 EST
Dear Esteemed Reader,
Thank you for your submission.
Your article has been forwarded to our editorial department.
Please note that due to limited manpower, we may not be able to respond to every submission.
We try our best to read every letter but due to the large volume of submissions we receive daily, only a select few will be published.
Thank you for your understanding!
In Truth and Tradition,
The Epoch Times