In this section:
Despite opposition from scientists, farmers and
consumers, the US currently allows dairy cows to be injected
with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), also known as
recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST). Developed and
manufactured by the Monsanto Corporation, this genetically
engineered hormone forces cows to artificially increase milk
production by 10 to 15 percent. In August 2008, Monsanto sold their Posilac division to Eli Lilly and Company for $300 million and 'contigent consideration.' (Eli Lilly exclusively sold Posilac outside the US for 10 years before the acquisition.)1 Today, controversy still
surrounds whether or not rBGH is safe for cows and humans.
What Is rBGH & rBST?
Somatotropin is a naturally-occurring protein hormone
produced in the pituitary gland of animals; Bovine Somatotropin
(BST or bST) triggers nutrients to increase growth in young
cattle and lactation (milk production) in dairy cows. Artificial
BST is produced using recombinant DNA technology
(biotechnology), and called rBST for short. rBST is commonly
known as Bovine Growth Hormone or rBGH.2
When injected into cows, rBGH increases milk production 10-15
percent and in some cases up to 40 percent. Approximately 17% of
all cows in the US are given the artificial growth hormone.4
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) approval
for rBGH came in 1993. According to opponents of the drug,
effects of rBGH were never properly studied. The FDA relied
solely on one study administered by Monsanto in which rBGH was
tested for 90 days on 30 rats. The study was never published,
and the FDA stated the results showed no significant problems.
The FDA continues to assure consumers that rBGH is safe
for cows and humans, despite evidence to the contrary. In 1994,
the FDA prohibited dairies from claiming there was any
difference between milk from rBGH-injected cows and milk
produced without the artificial hormone5.
This controversy, discussed below, continues today.
In 1998, an assessment by Health Canada (Canada's
equivalent of the FDA), determined Monsanto's results of their
90-day study showed concern and reasons for review before
approval of rBGH5/6.
Today, the European Union7, Japan8, Australia9
and Canada10 have all banned the
use of rBGH due to animal and human health concerns.
Animal And Human Risks
A 1991 report by Rural Vermont, a nonprofit farm advocacy
group, revealed serious health problems with the rBGH-injected
cows that were part of a Monsanto-financed study at the
University of Vermont. Problems included an alarming rise in the
number of deformed calves and dramatic increases in mastitis, a
painful bacterial infection of the udder which causes
inflammation, swelling,11 and pus
and blood secretions into milk12.
To treat mastitis outbreaks, the dairy industry relies on
antibiotics. Critics of rBGH point to the subsequent increase in
antibiotic use (which contributes to the growing problem of
antibiotic resistant bacteria) and inadequacies in the federal
government's testing program for antibiotic residues in milk13. The FDA relies on
pasteurization to kill off bacteria, hormones and antibiotics in
milk.
By the summer of 1994, the Wisconsin Farmers Union and
the National Farmers Union set up a joint hotline for dairy
farmers to use when reporting problems with artificial growth
hormones in cattle. One lifelong New York dairy farmer reported
losing a quarter of his herd to severe mastitis after beginning
rBGH injections. The same farmer reported a drastic drop in
production after taking his cows off rBGH; they suddenly
produced less milk then they had before going on the drug. A
year later, he replaced 135 of his original 200 cows. Other
farmers using rBGH report similar problems, in addition to hoof
diseases, open sores and bovine death stemming from internal
bleeding14.
Cows forced to produce unnaturally high quantities of
milk can become malnourished because they lose more nutrients
through their milk than they ingest in their feed15,
and are therefore more susceptible to disease. In addition to
artificial hormones, factory farms also use such methods as
selective breeding, feeding dairy cows large amounts of
grain (instead of grass), and exposing cows to longer periods of
artificial light to make them
produce more milk. Cows put under large amounts of stress do not
live as long as cows that are not stressed.
Milk from rBGH-treated cows contains higher levels of
IGF-1 (Insulin Growth Factor-1). Humans also naturally have
IGF-1, and increased levels in humans have been linked to colon
and breast cancer. Even though no direct connection has been
made between elevated IGF-1 levels in milk and elevated IGF-1
levels or cancer in humans, some scientists have expressed
concern over the possibility of this relationship16.
On
the Offense
While the FDA was lax in its reviews of rBGH, Monsanto
aggressively tried to suppress the health risks involved in the
use of the hormone. In 2001, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, two
respected investigative journalists at a Fox News station in
Tampa, Florida, were fired after months of controversy
surrounding their investigative report on rBGH use in Florida
dairies. According to the journalists, the station delayed
airing their story and demanded they include inaccurate
information about rBGH after Monsanto threatened the station
with legal action17.
In 2003, Monsanto asked the state of Maine to stop
issuing an official Quality Seal, which the state only grants to
dairies that do not use rBGH. Maine refused. Later that year,
Monsanto sued Oakhurst Dairy, Maine's largest dairy operation,
over its rBGH-free labels. Ultimately, Oakhurst changed its
labels, adding the statement, 'FDA States: No significant
difference in milk from cows treated with artificial growth
hormone.'18
The 1998 reviews by Health Canada determined the use of
rBGH increases the risk of mastitis by 25 percent, affects
reproductive functions, increases the risk of clinical lameness
by 50 percent, and shortens the lives of cows19.
Nonetheless, Monsanto lobbied the Canadian government hard to
win rBGH approval. Dr. Margaret Hayden, a Health Canada
researcher, reported to the Canadian Senate that officials from
Monsanto had offered between $1 million to $2 million to Health
Canada scientists'an offer she says could only be understood as
an attempted bribe20.
The
Revolving Door
In light of the potential danger to the milk-drinking
public and the proven danger to cows, how could the FDA allow
rBGH on the market? Critics argue the approval was the result of
pressure placed on the FDA by Monsanto and its powerful
lobbyists. Dr. Richard Burroughs, a senior FDA scientist
overseeing the rBGH safety studies, claims he was fired because
his concerns about the safety of rBGH delayed the approval
process21.
Critics note and condemn a 'revolving door' between the
FDA and Monsanto. For example, Michael Taylor, the FDA
commissioner responsible for writing the labeling guidelines,
had worked as a Monsanto lawyer for seven years before joining
the FDA. While at Monsanto, he created their strategy for
suppressing labeling information on rBGH. Likewise, the deputy
director of the FDA's New Animal Drugs Office had been a
Monsanto research scientist working on rBGH safety studies, and
another researcher in the same office had done Monsanto-funded
rBGH research at Cornell University, working under a paid
Monsanto consultant. Congress' General Accounting Office ruled
in 1994 that none of these cases of longstanding connections to
Monsanto posed a conflict of interest22.
There are many more ties between Monsanto and the U.S.
government today, including Supreme Court Justices, the FDA, and
the Environmental Protection Agency.
In The
News Today
Despite Monsanto's efforts to promote rBGH, farmers,
consumers and health advocates are rejecting the hormone. In
2004, Monsanto announced a 50 percent cutback of Posilac(R)
production due to repeated bacteria contamination at their plant
in Austria23. While rumors have
circulated that Monsanto was preparing to phase out its sales of
rBGH altogether, in 2006 they began production of Posalic(R) in a
plant in Augusta, Georgia24.
Out of growing consumer concern, some dairies label their
milk as 'rBGH-free' or 'No artificial growth hormones.' In
reaction to these labeling practices, a 'grassroots' non-profit
called American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of
Technology (AFACT) formed in February 2008 in an attempt to
outlaw this labeling practice, claiming it libel25.
The group receives funding from Monsanto and was formed by
Osborne & Barr, an agriculture PR firm founded by two
ex-Monsanto employees26.
Action is currently taking place around the United States
about these labeling practices, including:
- In October 2007, the
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, under the lead of
Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff, outlawed the hormone-free
labeling practice, claiming the labels are 'false' and
'misleading' to consumers27. In
reaction to public outcry, in January 2008, Governor Edward G.
Rendell allowed hormone-free labeling to be reinstated28.
- In February 2008, Ohio
Agriculture Director Robert Boggs approved the use of rBGH-free
labeling only if the FDA's disclaimer, 'no significant
difference has been shown between milk derived from
rBST-supplemented and non-rBST-supplemented cows,' also be
supplied. In March 2008, the Ohio Department of Agriculture
revised the law, claiming milk cannot contain labeling of
'compositional absence claims' (like 'hormone-free' or
'rBGH-free') and may only make 'production claims.' Any mention
of rBGH on a label must be accompanied by the FDA's claim29.
- Effective July 2008, House
Bill 1300, introduced by Rep. William Friend, in the Indiana
House of Representatives passed. The Bill makes synthetic
hormone-free labeling illegal, claiming it 'misbranded' if
'compositional claims cannot be confirmed through laboratory
analysis.'29 According to Health
Canada, recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone cannot be detected in
milk samples because it appears as regular Bovine Somatotropin
in analysis29.
Similar labeling controversies are currently underway in
Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, Utah and Vermont, and will most
likely surface in more states in the coming months. Monsanto
continues to push the FDA to restrict the use of rBGH-free
labeling.
While statewide controversies continue to surface, food
producers and suppliers are listening to consumer concerns. In
2007, United States grocery chains Kroger30
and Safeway31 banned the use of
rBGH-treated milk in their store-branded dairy products. In
January 2008, Starbucks32 stopped
using rBGH-treated milk, and in March 2008, WalMart33 banned rBGH use in their
store-brand milk products.
What
You Can Do
- See our rBGH-free dairy map to buy dairy
products sold in your state that are artificial hormone free.
- Visit the Eat Well Guide for an online
listing of stores, restaurants and producers that sell
rBGH-free dairy products.
- Visit our Questions to Ask page for questions
to ask a dairy farmer.
Did You Know?
- Large dairy farms, those with more than 500 cattle,
inject more rBGH into cows than medium and small herd farmers.
54% of large herd farmers use rBGH, compared with 32% medium
herd and 8% small herd farmers. 34
- Cows injected with rBGH need more feed to produce milk
at such demanding levels-- that means more farmland planted
with feed and more pollutants into the atmosphere. Planting,
pesticide sprays, harvest and transport pollutes the soil and
water. Around 10 billion pounds of nitrogen fertilizer, in
addition to other pollutants, are introduced into fields and
waterways every year to feed CAFO cows.35
- Monsanto lists over 20 toxic side effects on its
POSILAC label that rBGH has on cows.36
Take
Action
Page last updated July 2008
Related Information
Dairy
Factory Farming
Hormones
Sources
|
