Search OCA:
Get Local!

Find Local News, Events & Green Businesses on OCA's State Pages:

OCA News Sections

Organic Consumers Association

Ronnie Cummins: Monsanto's Genetically Engineered Bovine Growth Hormone Poses Significant Risks for Consumers

  • RONNIE CUMMINS: Studies show synthetic hormones are a risk for humans
    Organic Consumers Association
    Press of Atlantic City, NJ, January 24, 2008
    Straight to the Source

FINLAND, Minnesota - Health-minded consumers are increasingly vocal about their basic right to know what's in their food - and with good reason.

Case in point: synthetic hormones in milk. Fourteen years after a highly contentious FDA decision allowing milk and dairy products from cows injected with Monsanto's genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone - often called rBGH-- on the market, the controversy continues.

As scientists and consumer advocates warned at the start, revving up cows with a powerful synthetic hormone for no other reason than to force them to produce about 15 percent more milk is a terrible idea.

Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone is bad for dairy cows, literally burning them out in three or four years, causing terrible physical stress and a long list of medical problems including reproductive complications, lameness, pus in the milk, and higher rates of udder infections that are routinely treated with powerful antibiotics.

Even more worrisome, rBGH is likely hazardous for human health, since milk from injected cows contains significantly higher levels - ranging from 18 percent to 106 percent - of a potent cancer tumor promoter called insulin-like growth factor or IGF-1.

A number of studies have indicated that people with higher levels of IGF-1 in their bodies suffer from higher rates of colon and breast cancer. In addition Monsanto's rBGH is also more immunogenic - stimulates the immune system more - than the non-genetically engineered BGH produced naturally by a cow's pituitary gland.

Finally rBGH is bad for family farmers, since it artificially increases the supply of milk on the market, driving down prices paid to smaller farmers and giving large, intensive confinement dairy farms a competitive advantage.

Since 1994 government officials have been aware that Americans are wary of rBGH and genetically engineered foods in general. Polls have consistently shown that 80 percent to 95 percent of consumers want mandatory labels on rBGH-derived dairy products - mainly so they can avoid buying them.

Acknowledging significant consumer concerns over rBGH-tainted milk, the FDA - ignoring legal precedent - declared in 1993 that it would not require labeling, thereby keeping consumers in the dark.

In response, activists dumped rBGH-tainted milk outside supermarkets across the nation. Several hundred dairies declared that they would not use the drug, and would label their products as "rBGH-free," which the FDA reluctantly agreed would be allowed.

Beginning in the late 1990s, the controversy over rBGH spread globally. Europe, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Australia and other industrialized nations banned the use of rBGH on animal and human health grounds and began requiring labels on genetically engineered foods.

Today millions of health-minded consumers are buying organic or rBGH-free milk. Natural food stores sales are booming.

In response major dairy processors such as Kraft and Dean Foods, supermarket chains such as Kroger, coffeehouses including Starbucks, and restaurant chains such as Chipotle have begun requiring that their suppliers stop using rBGH.

As a result only 17 percent of America's dairy cows are presently being injected with the drug. Monsanto's response to widespread consumer rejection of rBGH has been to lobby the federal government to allow rBGH and genetic engineering in organics - and, more recently, to outlaw rBGH-free labels.

Rebuffed last year by the FDA and the Federal Trade Commission in its efforts to ban rBGH-free labels, Monsanto has now turned to lobbying state legislatures in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other states. But thousands of calls and e-mails from consumers have prompted state legislators to back off, most recently in Pennsylvania.

The bottom line is that consumers want to know what's in their food, and will respond to truthful labels such as "organic" and "rBGH-free" by voting with their dollars for safe, natural, and humanely raised products.

The final step to consumer satisfaction is requiring dairy producers to label all of their products that contain synthetic hormones such as rBGH.

For more information on this topic or related issues you can search the thousands of archived articles on the OCA website using keywords:

post Jan 26 2008, 12:48 PM

To whom do we direct letters in support of truthful labels for "rBGH-free" products? We need an on-line letter campaign AND an address to send our own letters.

We have a shot at returning our government to a democracy; we have a populace groomed toward fear, away from taking a stand, believing that signing our real names or giving our real addresses puts us on some watchdog list where They will be able to find and 'disappear' us more easily. The irony is that the only way we can reclaim democracy is to BE it. And with corporatism/ fascism (governments colluding with or being run by corporations), NAIS and human micro-chipping, and the increasing channeling of money into fewer and fewer hands, our silence signals utter defeat.

I'm not ready to give in! I want to add my name to those who are brave enough to stand against these power abuses, this sociopathology of the societal elite. Ronnie Cummins, to whom do I address my letter? And when can you have an on-line form available for each of us to sign?

Sincerely, diana Mackin