The Issues: rBGH

 

Discussed On This Page:
What is rBGH & rbSTsustainable Table
Animal and Human Risks
Monsanto on the Offense
The Revolving Door
In the News Today
What You Can Do
Take Action

For In-Depth Information On Related Topics
Dairy
Milk
Factory Farming
Hormones

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 in dairy cows. Artificial bST is produced using recombinant DNA technology (biotechnology), also called Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH), and known as rbST or rBGH for short. When injected into cows, rBGH increases milk production 10-15 percent and in some cases up to 40 percent. RBGH is used extensively in the U.S. dairy industry today and cannot be detected in laboratory analysis.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval for rBGH came in 1993, in spite of strong opposition from scientists, farmers and consumers. Developed and manufactured by Monsanto Corporation under the brand name Posilac®, rBGH has had a long stem of controversy. According to detractors 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.

Faced with mounting evidence to the contrary, the FDA stubbornly continues to assure consumers that rBGH is safe for cows and humans. In 1994, the FDA prohibited dairies from claiming there was any difference between milk from rBGH-injected cows and milk produced without the artificial hormone. This controversy, discussed below, continues today.

An assessment by Health Canada (Canada’s equivalent of the FDA) in 1998 on Monsanto’s results found the 90 day study showed reasons for review before approval of rBGH. Today, the European Union, Japan, Australia and Canada 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, and puss and blood secretions into milk. 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 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 bleeding.

Cows forced to produce unnaturally high quantities of milk will often become malnourished because they lose more nutrients through their milk than they ingest in their feed, and are therefore more susceptible to disease.

The FDA relies on pasteurization to kill off bacteria, hormones and antibiotics in the milk that may be harmful to humans.

Milk from rBGH-treated cows contains higher levels of IGF-1 (Insulin Growth Factor-1), which has been linked to colon and breast cancer. Even though no direct connection has been made between elevated IGF-1 levels in milk and cancer in humans, scientists have expressed concern over the possibility of this relationship.

Monsanto on the Offensive
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 action.

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.”

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 cows. 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 bribe.

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 process.

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 interest. 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® production due to repeated bacteria contamination at their plant in Austria. While rumors have circulated that Monsanto was preparing to phase out its sales of rBGH altogether, they recently completed construction of a new Posalic® plant in Augusta, Georgia.

Out of growing consumer concern, many dairies label their milk as “rBGH-free,” “No Growth Hormones,” or “Hormone Free.” 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 attempts to outlaw this labeling practice, claiming it libel. The group receives funding from Monsanto and was formed by Osborne & Barr, an agriculture PR firm founded by two ex-Monsanto employees.

Action is currently taking place around the United States about these labeling practices:

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 consumers. In reaction to public outcry, in January 2008, Governor Edward G. Rendell allowed hormone-free labeling to be reinstated.

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 claim.

Effective July 2008, House Bill 1300, introduced by Rep. William Friend, in the Indiana House of Representatives passed. The Bill makes hormone-free labeling illegal, claiming it “misbranded” if “compositional claims cannot be confirmed through laboratory analysis.” Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone cannot be detected in milk samples because it appears as regular Bovine Somatotropin in analysis.

Similar labeling controversies are currently underway in Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, Utah and Vermont, and are sure to surface in more states in the coming months. Monsanto continues to push the FDA to restrict the use of hormone-free labeling.

While state-wide controversies continue to surface, food producers and suppliers are listening to consumer concerns. In 2007, United States grocery chains Kroger and Safeway banned the use of rBGH-treated milk in their store-branded dairy products. In January 2008, Starbucks stopped using rBGH-treated milk and in March 2008, WalMart banned rBGH use in their store-brand milk products. Each month, more people are banding together to stop the use of rBGH in the milk supply.

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 hormone-free dairy products.

To see a list of partially and completely rBGH-free dairy producers, visit the Organic Consumers website.

Visit our Questions to Ask page for questions to ask a dairy farmer.

Take Action
If you want to keep rBGH-free labeling, or take further action, contact your State Governor by signing the Food and Water Watch Campaign.

The True Food Network has a similar campaign you can sign, targeting the FDA.

Sources