Conscious Choice: Milking the Consumer

September 1999

Milking the Consumer

by James Faber

It reads like a movie script with all the essential elements — good vs. evil, conspiracy and cover-up, and corporate crime. The good are a growing number of scientists, consumer groups, and small family farmers who are locked in a battle against the giant Monsanto Corporation and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the use of the genetically engineered hormone rBGH.

Although studies have shown the drug to cause human health problems, it has been on the U.S. market for five years — with U.S. consumers as unwitting participants in the study on its effects.

Biotechnology has enabled scientists to produce a form of the natural protein bovine growth hormone (BGH) produced by the pituitary gland of all cattle. The recombinant form of the protein, called rBGH, is injected into cows every other week to supplement the cow’s natural levels of BGH, forcing them to produce ten to twenty percent more milk than they normally would.

Monsanto, the company who brought rBGH to market under the trade name Posilac, claims that using rBGH will increase dairy farmers’ profits while having no adverse effects on human health.

The Monsanto Corporation is one of the U.S. top ten polluters, and a convicted corporate felon. They have been found guilty of conspiracy and anti-trust in marketing of herbicides, and they violated federal law by promoting rBGH before FDA approval. Monsanto is also the company responsible for terminator seeds, Agent Orange and PCBs. Still, the FDA agreed with Monsanto-funded studies which found milk from rBGH-injected cows to be no different than that from non-injected cows, while ignoring protests by many of its own independent scientists. The sale of milk from rBGH-injected cows was approved by the FDA in 1993, and has been in effect since 1994. An estimated 15 to 30 percent of American dairy cows are being injected with rBGH today.

One main concern about the use of rBGH is in its link to cancer. rBGH milk contains high levels of the naturally occurring hormone Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1), which are abnormally potent — up to ten times higher, and ten times more potent than the natural hormone. IGF-1 resists pasteurization, and digestion by stomach enzymes and is absorbed through the intestines.

According to a May 9, 1999 article in The Lancet, women with a relatively small increase in blood levels of IGF-1 are up to seven times more likely to develop premenopausal breast cancer than women with lower levels. The report concluded that the risks of elevated IGF-1 blood levels are among the leading known risk factors for breast cancer — exceeded only by a strong family history or unusual mammographic abnormalities.

"The entire nation is currently being subjected to a large-scale adulteration of an age-old dietary staple by a poorly characterized and unlabeled biotechnology produce which is very different than natural milk," says Dr. Samuel Epstein, Professor of Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition.

Epstein expressed concerns about the increased risks associated with rBGH in a study published in the International Journal of Health Services in 1996.

"The study concluded that increased IGF-1 levels are risk factors for breast and colon cancer. rBGH poses an even greater risk to human health than ever considered," warned Epstein.

The use of rBGH is also associated with other problems, including raising the levels of pus and antibiotic residues in the milk.

Cows that are forced to produce more milk become susceptible to udder infections called mastitis, which in turn can increase the amount of pus that ends up in the milk. Antibiotics are used to combat the mastitis and also end up in the milk. The danger is that these powerful antibiotics may lead to human resistance in the future, rendering them less effective and possibly useless.

Europe says no

In late June 1999, governments at the biennial Codex Alimentarius Commission meeting in Rome failed to agree on an international standard on rBGH. The Codex Alimentarius Commission is the main United Nations body that sets international food standards. Failure to agree to Maximum Residue Level for rBGH means that governments will have more control over the use of rBGH in their countries.

"With this decision, Codex has taken an important step in listening to the concerns of consumers," said Julian Edwards, director general of Consumers International. "We applaud the fact that national governments will be able to act to ensure that their citizens are not forced to consume products produced with the use of rBGH."

The adoption of a standard would have asserted that the hormone was safe to use and countries refusing to import dairy products from countries where rBGH is used could be brought before the World Trade Organization on the grounds they are creating a barrier to trade.

"By refusing to set a standard today, Codex has recognized that there is no consensus on rBGH safety in the international scientific community," said Jean Halloran, director of the Consumer Policy Institute at Consumers Union. "National governments should be able to decide whether rBGH should be permitted in their milk supply."

Canada says no

In September of 1998, six Health Canada scientists went before the Public Service Staff Relations Board to express concerns over the approval of rBGH. The scientists reported that rBGH files were stolen from a locked file cabinet, and claim they were pressured by Health Canada management to approve rBGH, or face personal law suits by drug companies. The pressure to quickly approve drugs was attributed to the powerful lobbying by industry on Health Canada management.

According to a January 19, 1999 New York Times article, the Canadian government said it would not approve rBGH, citing unpublished data from a Canadian study which showed between 20 and 30 percent of rats being administered rBGH orally were developing distinct immunological reactions.

"These are toxicologically significant changes in the rats, and they should have triggered a full human health review, including assessment of potential carcinogenic and immunological effects," said Michael Hansen, a Ph.D. Researcher with the Consumer Policy Institute. With Canada’s decision not to approve rBGH, the U.S. is the only major country to permit its use.

Still okay in the U.S.

In December of 1998, the Washington-based Center for Food Safety, along with more than two dozen consumer groups, filed a petition to reverse the FDA’s approval of rBGH.

"The petition demands the immediate withdrawal of Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone from the market," said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety. "It’s clear that the FDA put the interest of Monsanto above its duty to protect the health of the American consumer when it approved rBGH."

The petition asserts that new evidence not considered in the FDA’s 1993 approval of the product shows that more testing is needed.

"Essentially it was fraud by the agency and fraud by Monsanto in telling the court that there were no human health effects possible from consuming these products made with rBGH treated milk," said Kimbrell. "We now know that not to be true."

The main arguments used by the dairy industry to assure the public of the safety of rBGH are being slowly eroded away with each new contradictory scientific study showing its dangers. Finally, the consumer groups may be gaining the advantage.

The war against Monsanto’s rBGH is still raging, although some battles have already been won. In May of 1996, Ben & Jerry’s Homemade, Inc., was joined by Stonyfield Farm, Inc., Whole Foods Market, and Organic Valley in a lawsuit filed in federal court against the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago. The suit charged that the prohibition of anti-rBGH labeling was a violation of the companies’ first amendment right to honestly inform customers about the contents of their products.

In August of 1997, the suit was settled when Illinois and Chicago agreed to permit voluntary labeling by natural food companies against rBGH.

"We regret that the State of Illinois forced us into a legal resolution of this matter. However, this is a fundamentally important issue," said Perry Odak, CEO of Ben and Jerry’s. "Manufacturers should be able to tell customers how their products are produced and consumers should have the right to information that allows them to make an informed choice."

One positive coming from the rBGH dilemma has been a boom in the organic market, showing that the most powerful weapon in the war against Monsanto is the consumer’s dollar in purchasing only products that are guaranteed rBGH-free. According to dairy industry figures, sales of organic milk roughly doubled from $16 million in 1996, to almost $31 million in 1997.

The most absurd aspect of the whole issue may be that one of the dairy industry’s biggest problems year after year is overproduction of milk. The U.S. government uses tax dollars to purchase an estimated quarter million tons of surplus milk every year. The Consumers Union estimates the use of rBGH will cost U.S. taxpayers an additional $200 million a year to keep milk prices stable.

"The FDA and Monsanto have a lot to answer for," says Epstein. "Given the cancer risks and other health concerns, why is rBGH still on the market?"

Recommend this page to a friend

Top Ten pages recommended to friends: