|
|
Co-op Voices Unite! Defends Maine’s Quality Trademark Seal ControversyIn 1993 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the sale of milk from cows injected with the controversial recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) manufactured by Monsanto, and effectively banned “hormone-free” labeling. RBGH significantly increases milk production in dairy cows. Cows given rBGH are more susceptible to an infection called mastitis that can cause their milk to contain unacceptable levels of pus, requiring the cows to be treated with antibiotics. The increase in antibiotic use increases health risks to the cow and to human consumers of cow milk. Monsanto’s own instructions to the rBGH dairy farmers list over 20 toxic effects to the cow, which include mastitis, injection site reactions, bloat and other digestive disorders, retained placenta and other uterine disorders, enlarged hocks, foot disorders, and the need for medication of such toxic effects. Samuel Epstein, M.D., a world-renowned cancer specialist, concluded in 1996 that hormone-treated cows may increase people’s chances of contracting breast cancer and colon cancer. “With the complicity of the FDA, the entire nation is currently being subjected to an experiment involving large-scale alteration of an age-old dietary staple by a poorly characterized and unlabelled biotechnology product.” In addition to Doctor Epstein’s research, studies published in scientific journals such as The Lancet, International Journal of Health Services, Science Magazine, etc., have shown links between rBGH and breast cancer, prostate cancer, childhood cancer, lung cancer and colon cancer through increased levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1, a cancer-promoting hormone) in rBGH milk. Public Outrage - Why does Monsanto oppose consumer choice?Demonstrations erupted throughout the U.S. when rBGH milk was first brought to market. Protesters poured milk into the streets to show their outrage at being used as a human control group for a relatively untested product. Our country already had an oversupply of milk, so what was the point of introducing a potentially hazardous drug to boost milk production? (Another bad solution without a problem!) Eventually protests died down along with news coverage of rBGH. A number of American dairy farmers continued to administer the drug to their herds, forcing concerned consumers to seek organic milk and other dairy products identified as being made from milk produced without rBGH, as well as alternatives made from soy, grains and nuts. Monsanto’s Revolving Door with the FDAFurther, the FDA ruled the hormone-treated milk would not be labeled, meaning that purchasers would not be able to distinguish it on the shelf from regular milk. The basis for this denial of consumers’ right to know was created by Michael Taylor, at that time Deputy FDA Commissioner and formerly Chief Counsel for the International Food Biotechnology Council and Monsanto. Taylor worked with the FDA on two occasions - 1980 as Executive Assistant to the Commissioner (he subsequently joined a Washington law firm in 1984) and in 1991 was rehired as Deputy Commissioner for Policy. In 1998 Monsanto appointed Taylor to the position of Vice President for Public Policy. Taylor’s career clearly illustrates the friendly relationship between Monsanto and the FDA. Monsanto maintains that milk from Posilac-treated cows is the same as normal milk. In an interview for Food Chemical News (December 1998), Monsanto spokesman Gary Barton told Kathleen Hart, “There is no difference.” Although the FDA has fully backed Monsanto's claim, Posilac has been banned in Canada, the fifteen nations of the European Union, Australia and many other nations. Canadian regulators have refused to approve use of the synthetic growth hormone — unconvinced of its safety — with many ‘gaps’ in the 90 day rat study Monsanto submitted to the FDA in 1990 as evidence of the drug’s safety. This FDA review, primarily theoretical, took Monsanto’s conclusions at face value and provided no details of the studies or critical analysis. Public Concern Ignored by FDAIn response to the troubling findings of the Canadian team, at the end of 1998 a coalition of more than twenty U.S. citizens' groups and environmental organizations petitioned the FDA to remove rBGH from the market until additional safety tests were performed on the drug. Dr. Michael Hansen of Consumers Union pointed out that the Canadian reviewers found that 20 to 30 percent of the rats in Monsanto's ninety-day study developed “an antibody response” to the drug and that some of the rats developed cysts. “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,” Doctor Hansen told reporters. However, even in the wake of concern expressed by so many consumer groups, the FDA steadfastly refused to change its position on the safety of rBGH. Serious questions remain about the safety of rBGH milk. Suits before the FDA contend that their original decision was based on incomplete data. The rBGH drug was approved for use in Maine only after compromise — the Quality Trademark Seal program was the result. Now, ten years later, Monsanto is threatening Maine’s consumer protection measure by pressuring the Maine Department of Agriculture to forbid use of the Quality Trademark Seal. The lawyer in the Attorney General’s office who is handling the case is Mark Randlett. You can call him at (207) 626-8588, or email at mark.randlett@maine.gov, to find out what’s in the letter his office is sending Monsanto, et al. Read all about it at Organic Consumers Association web site To learn more, visit OCA's online library of rBGH/rBST articles For more in-depth information on this subject, reference the following: The Cancer of Politics Revisited by Samuel Epstein, M.D. (c) 1998, 770 pages -- East Ridge Press
Eating in the Dark by Kathleen Hart ©2002, 338 Pages -- Pantheon Books
“Alarming News on rBGH-IGF-1 Increases Cancer Risks” (September 11, 2002) Reuter’s article with Web Note from Dr. Michael Hansen of the Consumers Union, a noted expert and critic of Monsanto’s controversial recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone “HRT, Drinking Milk Tied to Higher Levels of a Cancer-Promoting Hormone (IGF-1) in Women” |
|
|
back to top Why? | Take Action | Co-op Voices Unite! Blue Hill Co-op | Resources | Home Co-op Voices Unite! | P.O. Box 1002, Blue Hill Maine 04614 | info@keepmainefree.org |