Hormone Use in Food Animal Production: Assessing Potential Dietary Exposures and Breast Cancer Risk

Abstract

In recent years, increasing attention has been paid to the role of hormones in breast cancer etiology, following reports that heightened levels of endogenous hormones and exposure to exogenous hormones and other endocrinedisrupting chemicals through food and the environment are associated with increased breast cancer risk. Seven hormone drugs (testosterone propionate, trenbolone acetate, estradiol, zeranol, progesterone, melengestrol acetate, and bovine somatotropin) are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in food animals. There is concern that these drugs or their biologically active metabolites may accumulate in edible tissues, potentially increasing the risk of exposure for consumers. To date, the potential for human exposure to residues of these compounds in animal products, as well as the risks that may result from this exposure, is poorly understood. In this paper, we discuss the existing scientific evidence examining the toxicological significance of exposure to hormones used in food animal production in relation to breast cancer risk. Through a discussion of U.S. federal regulatory programs and the primary literature, we interpret the state of surveillance for residues of hormone drugs in animal products and discuss trends in meat consumption in relation to the potential for hormone exposure. Given the lack of chronic bioassays of oral toxicity of the seven hormone compounds in the public literature and the limitations of existing residue surveillance programs, it is not currently possible to provide a quantitative characterization of risks that result from the use of hormonal drugs in food animal production, complicating our understanding of the role of dietary hormone exposure in the population burden of breast cancer.

Trade-offs of Personal Versus More Proxy Exposure Measures in Environmental Epidemiology

“…It is also important to note that for relatively time-invariant covariates like SES factors, if specific time windows of exposure for associations with an outcome are found, this can rule out confounding by time-invariant variables based on negative control exposures principles. 29,59–61 Although there are methods that have been proposed to account for unmeasured confounding, 62–64 they necessarily make assumptions about the structure of the unmeasured (possibly unknown) confounding. Thus, the possibility of simply eliminating some possible confounding may sometimes be preferable.…”

“…traffic patterns, meteorological factors, land use characteristics—to predict outdoor ambient pollutant concentrations at the individual’s residence in a given time window. These methods have been used to examine the effects of air pollution on many different health outcomes including cardiovascular, 24 respiratory, 25–27 and neurological effects, 28,29 as well as overall mortality. 30–32 …”

Presence of an epigenetic signature of prenatal cigarette smoke exposure in childhood

“…Regarding blood as the tissue of measurement, several studies have shown blood to be a relevant surrogate even when studying diseases that primarily affect other tissues (Davies et al, 2012; Kaminsky et al, 2012; Talens et al, 2010; Waterland et al, 2010). Moreover, blood-derived epigenetic signatures can have utility as prenatal exposure biomarkers, even when blood is not primarily involved in the disease being studied (Ladd-Acosta, 2015). …”

“…It is of interest as a mediating mechanism in exposure-disease associations, and may also have utility as a biological marker of exposure, even if not mechanistically implicated (Ladd-Acosta, 2015). Several groups have investigated associations between DNAm levels and in utero exposure to tobacco smoke.…”

Post-traumatic stress disorder and cardiometabolic disease: improving causal inference to inform practice

“…By obtaining cardiometabolic risk measures before and after, or at least clearly after, PTSD onset or treatment, the likelihood of reverse causation is minimized. Two of the suggested designs use individuals as their own comparator, thus eliminating possible influence of confounding factors that do not vary within individuals over the study period (Weisskopf et al , 2015). Additionally, two of the designs leverage the randomization to treatment found in most clinical trials to further improve causal inference.…”