Cow Cancer Virus Implicated in Breast Cancer

Up to 20 percent of all cancers in general are linked to infections, particularly viruses, and the list of potentially carcinogenic infectious agents is growing. It would be great if we could find a virus that contributed to breast cancer risk, because then we might have new ways to prevent and treat it. Currently, the dietary link between breast cancer and consumption of meat and dairy is considered a saturated fat effect, but there is a cancer-causing bovine virus that infects the mammary gland cells of cows. The infectious virus is then released into the milk supply. Since most U.S. dairy herds are infected, scientists posit that Americans are often exposed to this bovine leukemia virus (BLV), which I discuss in my video The Role of Bovine Leukemia Virus in Breast Cancer.

We didn’t have proof of this until 2003, 34 years after the virus was first identified. Early on, our best available tests failed to find antibodies to BLV in human blood. When our immune system is exposed to a virus, it creates antibodies to attack it. No antibodies, no exposure. “This led to the prevailing opinion that…the virus is not a public health hazard.” Though those tests “were state of the art at that time, they are extremely insensitive compared to more modern techniques.” As a result, researchers decided to re-examine the issue now that we have better tests. They took blood from about 250 people simply to address the question: “Do any humans have antibodies to BLV?” The answer? Yes, 191 of them did––74 percent. That shouldn’t have come as a surprise, however: By then, nearly 90 percent of American dairy herds were infected, and, according to the latest national survey, 100 percent of the big factory dairy farms were infected, as determined by testing the milk coming from those operations. Given this, why isn’t there an epidemic of cancer of the udder? Dairy cattle are slaughtered so young that there isn’t a lot of time for them to develop gross tumors, but that’s how most women may be getting infected. Although pasteurization should knock out the virus, who hasn’t eaten a rare, pink-in-the-middle burger at some point?

The bottom line is that the “long-held assumption that BLV is not a public health hazard…is no longer tenable…” This whole field of investigation needs to be reopened, with the next step determining whether humans are actually infected. “The presence of antibodies to particular viruses in human sera is generally interpreted as an indicator of a present or past infection with the virus.” But, theoretically, we might have developed antibodies to the dead viruses we ate, viruses that had been killed by cooking or pasteurization. Just because three-quarters of us have been exposed doesn’t mean we were actively infected by the virus.

How do we prove this? We would need to find the retrovirus actively stitched into our own DNA. Well, millions of women have had breast surgery, so why not just look at the tissue? Researchers finally did just that and published their findings in the Centers for Disease Control and Protection’s emerging infectious diseases journal: Forty-four percent of samples tested positive for BLV, proving for the first time that humans can be infected with bovine leukemia virus. The final step? Determine whether the virus is actually contributing to disease. In other words, are the bovine leukemia viruses we’re finding in human breast tissue cancer-causing or just “harmless passengers”?

One way to make that determination is to see whether the virus is more often present in those with breast cancer. No one had ever looked for the virus in breast tissue from people with cancer…until now. The “[p]resence of BLV-DNA in breast tissues was strongly associated with diagnosed and histologically confirmed breast cancer…” As many as 37 percent of human breast cancer cases may be attributable to exposure to bovine leukemia virus.

For some historical background leading up to these shocking findings, see my video Is Bovine Leukemia Virus in Milk Infectious?.

I couldn’t wait to read the meat and dairy industry journals to see how they’d try to spin this. Find out what I discovered in my final video in this series Industry Response to Bovine Leukemia Virus in Breast Cancer.

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

Should You Be Concerned about Bovine Leukemia Virus in Milk?

Decades ago, concern was raised that the milk of dairy cows frequently contains a leukemia-causing virus—more specifically, bovine leukemia virus (BLV), the leading cancer killer among dairy cattle. Most U.S. dairy herds are infected with the cancer virus. “Thus the question of whether dairy cows naturally infected with BLV release infectious virus into milk is an important public health consideration” and the subject of my video Is Bovine Leukemia Virus in Milk Infectious?.

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania decided to put it to the test. And indeed, infectious virus was demonstrated in the milk of 17 of the 24 cows tested, indicating that “humans are often orally exposed to BLV.” Just because we’re exposed to it doesn’t mean it’s causing human disease, though. How do we know BLV can even infect human cells? We didn’t until 1976 when it was discovered that BLV can indeed infect human, chimpanzee, and rhesus monkey cells. Nevertheless, that still doesn’t mean BLV necessarily causes cancer in other species.

Researchers can’t lock human infants in a cage and feed them infected milk, but they can cage infant chimpanzees. Chimps Bois and Roger were fed infected milk, developed leukemia, and died. Until then, we didn’t even know chimps could get leukemia. The fact that BLV-infected milk appeared to transmit or induce leukemia in our closest living relatives certainly did raise the stakes, but human beings are not chimpanzees. Yes, our DNA may be 98 percent identical, but we may share 60 percent of our DNA with a banana. We need human studies.

We can’t do interventional trials in this case, thanks to those pesky Nuremberg principles, but what about observational studies? Do cattle farmers have higher rates of cancer? Apparently so. This finding led some to suggest that “milk- and egg-borne viruses may be highly important in the pathogenesis [or development] of human leukemia and lymphoma,” but farmers may be exposed to all sorts of potential carcinogens, such as pesticides. Large animal veterinarians may also have more leukemia and lymphoma, but some are also “particularly lax in the use of X-ray protective equipment,” so it didn’t necessarily have anything to do with viruses.

We needed so-called serology studies, testing people’s blood for antibodies against the virus, which would prove human exposure, and we got them. Ten different studies looked for BLV antibodies in cancer patients and non-cancer patients, creamery employees versus office employees, veterinarians, unpasteurized milk drinkers, and more. “Not one of these studies found a single individual with antibodies to BLV…” As a result, in 1981, the case was closed: “Therefore, there is strong serological evidence to indicate that BLV is not transmissible to man.” However, the strength of the evidence is only as strong as the strength of the test. Chimpanzees Bois and Roger didn’t develop detectable antibodies either, and they died from BLV.

The tests available a handful of decades ago were not really sensitive. “Clearly, the question of whether BLV poses a public health hazard deserves thorough investigation” using highly sensitive molecular probes. It would take a few decades for us to get such an examination, and I discuss those landmark findings in my videos The Role of Bovine Leukemia in Breast Cancer and Industry Response to Bovine Leukemia Virus in Breast Cancer.

Thankfully, feline leukemia virus does not appear to be transmissible. See Pets and Human Lymphoma.

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations:

The Downside of Curcumin Supplements

Supplement manufacturers often fall into the same reductionist trap as the drug companies. Herbs are assumed to have only one main active ingredient, so, as the thinking goes, if you can isolate and purify it into a pill, you can boost its effects. Curcumin is described as the active ingredient in turmeric, but is it the active ingredient or just an active ingredient? It is just one of many different components—more than 300, in fact—of the whole food spice.

“Only limited studies have compared the potential of turmeric with curcumin.” Some, however, suggest turmeric, the whole food, may work even better—and not just against colon cancer cells. As I discuss in my video Turmeric or Curcumin: Plants vs. Pills, researchers at the Anderson Cancer Center in Texas pitted both curcumin and turmeric against seven different types of human cancer cells in vitro.

The study found that curcumin kicks tush against breast cancer cells, but turmeric, the whole food, kicks even more. In addition to breast cancer, the researchers found that turmeric was more potent compared to curcumin against pancreatic cancer, colon cancer, multiple myeloma, myelogenous leukemia, and colorectal cancer cells, “suggesting that components other than curcumin can also contribute to anti-cancer activities.”

Most clinical studies treating diseases in people have used curcumin supplements, as opposed to turmeric, but none has tried using turmeric components other than curcumin, even though curcumin-free turmeric exhibits anti-inflammatory and anticancer activities.

“Although curcumin is believed to account for most activities of turmeric, research over the past decade has indicated that curcumin-free turmeric”—that is, turmeric with the so-called active ingredient removed—“is as effective as or even more effective than curcumin-containing turmeric.” There are turmerones, for example, in turmeric, which may exhibit both anticancer activities, as well as anti-inflammatory activities, but these turmerones are processed out of curcumin supplements. So, I assumed this review would conclude by stating we should stop giving people curcumin supplements and instead just give them the whole food spice turmeric, but instead the researchers proposed that we make all sorts of different turmeric-derived supplements!

That’s quite a rebut to reductionism. For more on this flawed nutritional philosophy, see my video Reductionism and the Deficiency Mentality.

Similar videos in this vein include:

Interested in learning more about turmeric and cancer? See:

And for more on turmeric and everything else:

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations: