Contents of Document 1:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Hidden Plight letter, 1981
DES & the Meat Industry, 1981
Screening for DES Daughters, 1983
DES Brand Names, 1983
(1) Hidden Plight of the Victims of DES
Letter to the Editor
The Age, 7 January 1981
It is fitting that in time for the International Year of the Disabled Persons the State
Government should recognise the "invisible" disabilities created by exposure to
diethylstilboestrol (DES). (The Age, 9/12)
It is now nine years since the US Government recognised the effects of this medically
prescribed drug on the developing foetus. DES was prescribed for three decades from the
1940s in the mistaken belief that it prevented miscarriage. It has now been linked with a
rare form of vaginal cancer in daughters, and other "invisible" disabilities such as infertility
and deformities of the upper genital tract.
[As reported by The Age, 9/12/1980] the State Government has resolved to establish a
DES register and clinic for DES daughters, in order to treat and monitor the after-effects of
DES exposure. However, there are no matching provisions for DES sons, now shown to
be equally susceptible to genital tract abnormalities, infertility and other problems.
Although a similar rare, symptomless and virulent cancer has not been found in DES
sons, their future is unknown and new effects could emerge as they become older.
DES Action is a "consumer" group which supports the provisions made by the Health
Commission so far. We liken our plight to that of Thalidomide sons and daughters, except
that our symptoms are hidden and less tangible. They do not "inform" people, even DES
victims themselves, of a terrible mistake which we hope will never be repeated with any
drug.
Felicity Browning,
member of DES Action.
DES Action Australia Inc
1
Doc.1
(2) DES & the Meat Industry
Includes:

Serpent Beneath the (Eli) Lilly

The DE$ Dollar - part 1

The DE$ Dollar - part 2
From DESPATCH - #5 October 1981
The Serpent Beneath the (Eli) Lilly
By Felicity Browning
If it's been hard to find out about the ways DES affects our bodies, it's even harder to
discover how the almighty Dollar has ordained it. Very little is known about the Eli Lilly
Company, a major US manufacturer of DES. However, it is interesting to trace the
involvement of Eli Lilly with the development and use of DES for agricultural purposes.
We find that:
- The original research through which DES was introduced as a feed additive was
conducted at Iowa State University, which had a licensing agreement with Eli Lilly and
received a royalty from its sales. The research has since been discredited as of dubious
quality; and as being, in effect, subsidisation by the US taxpayer of $58 million worth of
sales for Eli Lilly.
- In 1970 Eli Lilly put pressure on the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to double
permitted dosage levels of DES per day per animal. The FDA willingly cooperated. Their
monitoring of DES levels in slaughtered stock was ineffective and conducted on only a
small number of carcasses anyway.
- Throughout the 1970s Eli Lilly assisted universities and research stations conducting
studies on DES with partial grants, by supplying DES and monitoring its chemical stability,
and by providing its own research staff. The objectivity of such research, which was
geared towards economic efficiency rather than the quality of meat produced, is surely
questionable.
- More recently, Eli Lilly has links with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the
American Cancer Society, through membership on both of its consultant, Frank J. Dixon.
Both positions pose a major conflict of interest by Dixon. He is a member of the NCI
Advisory Board, which determines NCI funding policy - and Eli Lilly receives research
funding. As a member of the National Board of Directors of the American Cancer Society
he contributes to its emphasis on diagnosis and treatment, rather than prevention, of
cancer.
Sources:
Samuel Epstein: The Politics of Cancer
Journal of Animal Science (US).
From DESPATCH - #5 October 1981
The DE$ Dollar, part 1 - Early Days of the DES-Burger
By Felicity Browning
When DES was first synthesised in 1938, it was found to be cancer-causing in animals...
Yet DES has gone on to be manufactured, marketed and distributed for over 40 years and
used for a wide range of purposes.
Why on Earth?
A look at the way DES was used in the meat industry gives an idea of the multi-million
dollar business us DES daughters, sons and mothers have inadvertently been the victims
of. It is linked to our immediate concerns by a common theme of cancer risk, and more
directly by the appreciable increase in natural hormone levels the consumption of DESmeat may cause - an added risk factor to those already exposed to DES.
DES Action Australia Inc
2
Doc.1
The use of DES as a stock feed additive in the production of poultry, pigs and cattle has
been found to stimulate weight gain in animals faster and on less feed. This means less
capital outlay, higher turnover of stock, and increased profits to the cattle and feedlot
industry. The enhanced efficiency of meat production takes place at the expense of the
quality of the product. DES acts mainly to increase conversion of feed to fat rather than
protein, and it increases the amount of water in muscle tissue.
The history of the agricultural use of DES in the US is a story of collusion between
government and big business in imposing an unnecessary, indeed harmful, commodity on
an unwitting population, for the sake of private profits.
The main actors in this story are:
- the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA);
- the pharmaceutical companies, of which Eli Lilly is a leading DES manufacturer; and
- the meat-producing industry, which as we know is no "small farmer" affair but consists of
large feedlot firms and multi-national "agribusiness" companies.
In 1947 the USDA approved the fattening and caponising of chickens by the implanting of
15 mg DES pellets under the skin of their necks. Despite subsequently being sued by
mink ranchers, whose animals had become sterile after eating DES chicken scraps, the
USDA still allowed its use in chickens. In 1954, the USDA extended the use of DES to
cattle. Each animal could be fed 5-10 mg daily, provided DES intake was withdrawn 48
hours prior to slaughter to prevent residues remaining in the meat.
In 1958, the Delaney Amendment of the US Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act was introduced.
This amendment flatly prohibited food additives (including those in animal feed) which
were found to be carcinogenic in either humans or animals. The FDA, which throughout
had denied that DES was a carcinogen, successfully argued for the continuation of its use,
on the technicality that the amendment could not be applied to substances already in use.
However, when in 1959 residues of DES were found in chicken carcasses, its use was
banned in poultry. The USDA promptly bought and removed from the market about $10
million worth of treated poultry. Alarmed by this ban the industry lobby introduced another
amendment to the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act. This specifically exempted DES
and other carcinogenic feed additives from the Delaney amendment, provided residues
were monitored and not present in the meat at time of slaughter.
Clearly the implication was that any DES subsequently found in meat would be due to bad
feeding practice, not any inherent properties of DES. And the US Congress was virtually
handing all responsibility for control of the use of DES over to the discretion of the FDA
and USDA, making action at the legislative level less likely.
In fact, the USDA and FDA rarely checked on DES residues in meat, sampling only a
small number of carcasses with ineffective methods. They kept all records confidential. In
1970, by which time 75% of all beef produced in the US - 30 million head per year - were
fed DES, the FDA doubled permitted dosage levels to 20 mg per day / per animal.
With the 1971 discovery of vaginal cancer in DES daughters, the activities of the USDA
and FDA in regulating the use of DES came under a new scrutiny and attack.
To be continued...
From DESPATCH - #8 June 1982
The DE$ Dollar, part 2 - US Ban & Use in Australia
By Felicity Browning
US Ban - At Last!
In part 1 we saw the apparent complicity of the US government Food & Drug
Administration (FDA) with big business in tolerating and even increasing the use of DES in
livestock animals and feed. Despite attempts to ban DES through legislation, the FDA
doubled permitted levels of DES in meat, at the request of Eli Lilly, in 1970. Sporadic and
DES Action Australia Inc
3
Doc.1
ineffective testing of DES residues in meat took place and the results were not made
public.
When, in 1971, vaginal cancer was discovered in DES daughters, the activities of the FDA
and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) came under a new scrutiny and attack.
Agency record were examined and revealed that DES residues had been found in beef
liver since 1966! The levels of DES found would, in a single serving of liver, make an
appreciable addition to natural hormone levels in the consumer. More tests were then
done, and substantial DES residues were found in the livers of sheep and cattle. These
findings caused a furore, and criticism of the agricultural use of DES mounted.
Over twenty other countries had by this stage banned DES, and most European countries
would not buy US meat because of its DES content. In an attempt to placate the critics,
the USDA extended the 48 hour period of withdrawal (of DES prior to slaughter) to 7 days.
This arbitrary measure was based on one experiment with one cow! It was also assumed
that cattle producers would comply "on their honour" when, in fact, usual practice is to
slaughter and sell when the market prices are highest.
At this stage evidence from independent enquires persuaded the FDA to ban the use of
DES in meat production. However the pressure from the industry lobby must have been
enormous. The drug manufacturers were losing millions in profits, and cattle producers
had to substitute other, far more expensive, carcinogenic "plumping" oestrogens. It took a
joint lobby of the meat and drug industries only nine months to win an appeal to have DES
returned to the market place.
The FDA then launched new proceedings to ban DES, with proper hearings from all
parties concerned, which previously had not taken place. As a result, in June 1979, DES
was finally banned as a growth-promoter in cattle and sheep.
In essence, the FDA Commissioner responsible for the hearing concluded that:

it could not be shown that there was a level below which DES did not cause cancer
i.e. any level is potentially hazardous; and

residues of DES do occur in food from animals treated with it and there is no reliable
way to detect whether these levels are carcinogenic or not.
What about Australia?
We have learnt (at least by August 1980) Eli Lilly had set up an Australian subsidiary
called Elanco, based in West Ryde, NSW. This is not surprising as huge profit-making
corporations are constantly searching for new market outlets, and the US ban in 1979
would have intensified this effort. This practice of off-loading unsaleable stock in countries
elsewhere is called "dumping " in marketing jargon.
We know that at the 13th Biennial Conference of the Australian Society of Animal
Production, a symposium was held on "Controlled-Release Subcutaneous Implants" i.e.
injections of slow-release pellets containing minerals, growth hormones, etc. into the loose
tissue of animals bred for meat. Sure enough a certain A.C. Schlink, representative of
Elanco products, was a speaker at the symposium describing Eli Lilly's latest products.
The record of proceedings suggests that, to date, carcinogenic oestrogens such as
Zeranol and Oestradiol-17B have been used by Australian farmers. One speaker (a
farmer) expressed hope that a new Eli Lilly product would be available soon. This new
implant is tactfully named "Compudose", and is later described as releasing both "a drug
which stimulates secretion of growth-promoting hormones and a hormone itself."
Sources:
Samuel Epstein: The Politics of Cancer
Australian Society of Animal Production: Animal Production in Australia, Vol. 13, 1980.
DES Action Australia Inc
4
Doc.1
(3) Recommended Screening for DES Daughters
Extract from pamphlet You
may be a DES Daughter
Produced by DES Action Australia, 1983
The DES Examination
If you believe your mother may have been prescribed DES or a related drug, go to a
doctor or clinic with experience in DES screening.
The time to go is:
- when you commence to menstruate or when you are 14 year old (whichever is earlier) or
- immediately, if you have any unusual vaginal discharge or irregular bleeding.
At the clinic or doctor's rooms ask specifically if the doctor is screening other DES
daughters and if he/she is familiar with the procedures described below. DES related
changes might not show up in the routine pelvic examination and Pap smear given by
most doctors.
The examination consists of:
- Careful visual inspection of the vagina and cervix for physical differences
- Gentle palpation of the walls of the vagina for any lumps or areas of roughness
- Smears taken from the cervix and the vagina. The routine Pap smear involves taking a
smear of the cells on the cervix. In the DES examination additional smears are taken from
the vaginal walls.
- Iodine staining of the vagina and cervix. When the diluted iodine solution is applied,
normal tissue stains brown while glandular tissue (adenosis) does not stain.
Depending on the results of these procedures, further tests may be carried out.
These include:
- Looking at the tissue of the vagina and cervix with a magnifying instrument called a
colposcope. This shows up any abnormal-looking tissue and its exact location. Where
possible, it is suggested that your initial examination includes colposcopy.
- Taking a tiny sample of tissue from the vagina by biopsy. This involves only slight
discomfort though some bleeding may occur. The tissue sample is sent to a laboratory
and examined under microscope.
You will need to have repeated DES screening examinations at regular intervals for the
rest of your life. Some or all of the procedures done at the first examination will be
repeated. Usually the doctor will draw any changes seen on your medical record, and
discuss with you the changes as they occur over time. It is important that you feel
comfortable about the health care you are getting.
The screening should also include a breast examination. In addition, DES daughters are
encouraged to carry out monthly breast self-examination.
DES Daughters and The Pill
If you are a DES daughter, you should also know that taking any additional oestrogen may
be harmful. Oestrogen in contained in the oral contraceptive pill and the "morning-after"
pill. Many DES daughters prefer to steer clear of additional hormones!
DES Action Australia Inc
5
Doc.1
(4) Australian DES Brand Names
Extract from pamphlet You
may be a DES Daughter
Produced by DES Action Australia, 1983
Names under which DES and related drugs have been sold:
Ambigen
Amenorone
Amenorone Forte
Antiferont
Barboestrol
Clinestrol
Climatost
Cyrogene A
Cyrogene B
Dienobarb
Dienoestrol
Diesavite
Dihydrostilboestrol
Diescron
Duogynon injections
Duogynon oral
Enavid
Estigyn
Estigyn Elixir
Estinyl
Ethidol
Eticyclin
Euvalerol M
Ferandren
Hexoestrol
Hextrol
Honvan
Lut-Ovocyclin
Menoclimax
Menoform Injections
Menotone
Menstrogen Injetions
Menstogen Tablets
Menstrone
Mepilin
Mepilin Elixir
Mixogen
Neo-Oestranol
Neo-Oestrogenine
O.C.P.
Oestroform
Oestroform Aqueous
Oestrogenine
Oestrogenine Compound
Oramen
Orasecron
Ovestin
Ovocyclin
DES Action Australia Inc
6
Doc.1
Pabestrol
Pabestrol D
Pausandryl
Premarin
Premarin with Meprobamate
Premarin with Methyltestosterone
Primodian
Primodian Depot
Primogyn C
Primogyn Depot
Stilboestrol
Stilboestrol Diphosphate
Stilboestrol Diproprionate
Synthovo
Tace
Theelin
Thyboestrol
Vallestril
Viraxasterol
This list is not exhaustive, as there is no complete listing [i.e. a list which contains all the
generic and proprietary names] available for the period in question.
DES Action Australia Inc
7
Doc.1