Crying over Labeled Milk
By
Christopher Wanjek
LiveScience's Bad Medicine Columnist
On SatuMonsanto, the multinational biotechnology
corporation and leading producer of genetically
engineered seed with a near monopoly on
many crops and annual revenue exceeding
$7 billion, is worried that you are being
misled.
For
this reason, the company wants to ban
shady dairy farmers like those rascally
Amish and weirdo hippies from labeling
their products free of artificial hormones.
Earlier this month, Monsanto complained
to the Food and Drug Administration and
Federal Trade Committee about the proliferation
of labels with language such as "Our
Farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth
Hormones," as found on milk sold
by Oakhurst Dairy in Portland, Maine.
Monsanto
says this scares consumers into thinking
there's something unhealthy about its
human-made recombinant bovine growth hormone
(rBGH), also known as recombinant bovine
somatotropin (rBST) or by the Monsanto
brand name, Posilac, now in about one-third
of American dairy cows.
Probably
safe for humans
Monsanto's rBGH, approved by the FDA in
1993, increases milk production by more
than 10 percent. Monsanto takes somatotropin,
a natural protein hormone, and mass-produces
this using DNA-recombinant technology
similar to how insulin medication is made.
Although
the FDA deemed rBGH safe, nearly every
government in the world as well as the
Coded Alimentarius Commission, which sets
international food standards, disagreed
and placed a ban on rBGH-a ban that is
only now slowly being lifted. There were
economic concerns about rBGH's affect
on milk production and price as well as
health concerns.
Numerous
studies have since shown that rBGH is
likely safe for human consumption. Early
on, however, studies published in prominent
journals found that milk from rBGH-treated
cows had elevated levels of another bovine
hormone called IGF-I. And unrelated research,
such as a highly regarded study from Harvard
published in 1998 involving 15,000 men,
found a connection between IGF-I and prostate
cancer.
What
about the cow?
The cows don't seem to be faring as well
as humans, though. A study published in
the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research
in 2003, analyzing numerous other studies,
found that rBGH-treated cows were 25 percent
more likely to have an udder infection
called mastitis, 40 percent more likely
to fail to conceive, and 55 percent more
likely to develop clinical signs of lameness.
Dairy
cows are already bred for high milking
output, and the artificial boost from
rBGH takes a toll on their bodies. Monsanto
Posilac's label in fact warns, "Cows
injected with Posilac are at increased
risk for clinical mastitis." Infections
often are treated with antibiotics, raising
concern about their overuse.
For
animal welfare reasons alone, consumers
have the right to know how their milk
is produced.
Freedom
of speech
Monsanto was aggressive about rBGH from
the get-go and infamously stopped a Fox
news affiliate in Florida in the early
1990s from broadcasting a report on it,
which most consumers knew nothing about
because of the lack of labeling. When
the reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson,
refused to yield, Fox fired them.
Ultimately
the plan backfired after the reporters
successfully sued Fox under the Florida
whistle-blower law and eventually won
the 2001 International Goldman Environmental
Prize.
In
1994 the FDA placed limits on wording
rBGH foes could use, and some states prohibited
labeling outright. Ben & Jerry's and
three other companies needed to sue Illinois
and Chicago for the right to say their
products did not come from cows treated
with rBGH.
Ben
& Jerry's adds the FDA-preferred wording:
"The FDA has said no significant
difference has been shown and no test
can now distinguish between milk from
rBGH treated and untreated cows."
Oakhurst Dairy and many other producers
do not have this voluntary disclaimer,
which Monsanto says violates the FDA's
rules on misleading labels.
No
such disclaimer is needed for organic
labeling, stating the conventional foods
are just as safe.
Truth
in labeling
It is difficult to ascertain the truth
about rBGH's safety because Monsanto itself
doesn't do well with accurate labeling.
On its website Monsanto posts a fact
sheet reportedly from the FDA
but actually written by a scientist from
Cornell University.
The
dead giveaway is that FDA fact sheets
don't use underlining and exclamation
points-as in "YES!"-to answer
such softball questions as "Are milk
and meat from bST-supplemented cows safe?"
The so-called fact sheet is comically
slanted in industry's favor. Also note
the lack of "r" in "bST,"
Monsanto's way of minimizing the artificialness
of rBST.
Similarly,
Monsanto's posting called "Questions
And Answers About bST From The United
States Food And Drug Administration,"
with language not typical of an FDA factsheet,
doesn't seem to appear on any FDA website.
Proposed
FDA rulings include not
telling consumers when food is irradiated
or derived
from clones. Monsanto goes
the extra step to limit what the other
guy can say as well.
Christopher Wanjek is the author of the
books "Bad
Medicine" and "Food
At Work." Got a question about Bad
Medicine? Email
Wanjek. If it's really bad,
he just might answer it in a future column.
Bad Medicine appears each Tuesday on LIveScience.
?,