. |
Seeds for Change Wellness
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Monsanto Announces Its Exit From the Growth Hormone Business
Monsanto Announces Its Exit From the Growth Hormone Business
Saturday, November 01, 2008 by: Barbara L. Minton
Source: Natural News
Even the giant hand of Monsanto was not big enough to ram down the throats of consumers milk
from growth hormone treated cows. It now wants to exit the artificial growth hormone business, by
selling Prosilac, the unit that makes it.
This action comes in the wake of increasing consumer refusal to purchase dairy products
treated with the hormone, known as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), and
introduction of legislation requiring the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets to
issue quality seals for milk products that are free of the synthetic hormone. The legislation would
also require all who use the seal to allow the Department to draw blood from their milking herds,
examine historical milk production records, inspect medicine storage places and perform other
inspections necessary to verify synthetic rBGH–free compliance with the trademark criteria.
Controversy over rBGH has raged since an FDA decision fifteen years ago allowed milk and
dairy products from cows injected with Monsanto's rBHG to be marketed without being labeled as
containing the artificial hormone. Scientists and consumer advocates warned from the start that
boosting the production of milk from a dairy cow treated with the powerful hormone by 15
percent was a bad idea. But Monsanto was unwilling to take 'no' for an answer.
Instead, it began a campaign of market manipulation, suppressed information, and smear tactics
meant to spread doubts about hormone-free milk. When milk sellers tried to sell milk from
untreated cows, Monsanto sued them claiming they were misleading their customers into thinking
that milk from untreated cows is better, and lobbied the government to outlaw labels telling
whether the cows had been treated with growth hormones. In violation of free market principles,
Monsanto sought to prevent milk drinkers from knowing what is in the milk they drink.
Despite these maneuvers, the voices of customers became loud enough to force Wal-Mart,
Kroger and Publix among other retailers to refuse to sell house-branded milk from treated cows.
Even the fresh milk sold by Dean Foods, the nation's largest milk bottler, now comes exclusively
from cows not treated with the hormone.
In the face of all this, officials at St. Louis based Monsanto say their decision to exit the rBGH
business was not related to retail trends, and claim that business for Prosilac remains brisk
although it has not released recent sales numbers.
Use of rBGH was approved by the FDA in 1993. It was one of the first applications of genetic
engineering used in food production. Although injecting rBGH into cows results in increased milk
production by about a gallon a day, it has always been a tough sell to dairy farmers because use
of the hormone causes a cow's useful life to be shortened and compromised. The list of issues
resulting from rBGH includes reproductive complications, lameness, pus in the milk, and higher
rates of udder infections that must be treated with powerful antibiotics.
In humans consuming milk from rBGH treated cows, the outcomes may be even worse. Milk from
injected cows contains high levels of insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) that some believe is a
promoter of cancer. Although no cause and effect relationship has been established, 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. IGF-1 is also immunogenic and may pose a threat to
people with overactive immune systems.
Use of rBGH is also hard on many farmers since it artificially increases the supply of milk on the
market, driving down prices paid to smaller farmers and giving large farmers using confinement a
competitive edge.
Consumers have been wary of rBGH since its introduction. Polls have consistently shown that 80
to 95 percent of people want mandatory labeling on dairy products made from rBHG so they can
avoid buying them. But the FDA has consistently ignored the wishes of the taxpayers it works for
and is mandated to protect, and declared that it would not require labeling, thus keeping
consumers from knowing what they are buying.
In response to the FDA ruling, activists dumped hormone containing milk outside supermarkets
across the country. Many dairies refused to use rBGH and demanded the ability to label their
products as rBGH free, leading Monsanto to respond by lobbying the federal government to
allow rBGH and genetic engineering in organics and to outlaw rBGH labels.
When the FDA and the FTC balked, Monsanto turned to lobbying state legislatures to get its
way. But irate consumers have made their voices heard, as the recent legislation introduced in
New York exemplifies
About the author
Barbara is a school psychologist, a published author in the area of personal finance, a breast
cancer survivor using "alternative" treatments, a born existentialist, and a student of nature and
all things natural.
Saturday, November 01, 2008 by: Barbara L. Minton
Source: Natural News
Even the giant hand of Monsanto was not big enough to ram down the throats of consumers milk
from growth hormone treated cows. It now wants to exit the artificial growth hormone business, by
selling Prosilac, the unit that makes it.
This action comes in the wake of increasing consumer refusal to purchase dairy products
treated with the hormone, known as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), and
introduction of legislation requiring the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets to
issue quality seals for milk products that are free of the synthetic hormone. The legislation would
also require all who use the seal to allow the Department to draw blood from their milking herds,
examine historical milk production records, inspect medicine storage places and perform other
inspections necessary to verify synthetic rBGH–free compliance with the trademark criteria.
Controversy over rBGH has raged since an FDA decision fifteen years ago allowed milk and
dairy products from cows injected with Monsanto's rBHG to be marketed without being labeled as
containing the artificial hormone. Scientists and consumer advocates warned from the start that
boosting the production of milk from a dairy cow treated with the powerful hormone by 15
percent was a bad idea. But Monsanto was unwilling to take 'no' for an answer.
Instead, it began a campaign of market manipulation, suppressed information, and smear tactics
meant to spread doubts about hormone-free milk. When milk sellers tried to sell milk from
untreated cows, Monsanto sued them claiming they were misleading their customers into thinking
that milk from untreated cows is better, and lobbied the government to outlaw labels telling
whether the cows had been treated with growth hormones. In violation of free market principles,
Monsanto sought to prevent milk drinkers from knowing what is in the milk they drink.
Despite these maneuvers, the voices of customers became loud enough to force Wal-Mart,
Kroger and Publix among other retailers to refuse to sell house-branded milk from treated cows.
Even the fresh milk sold by Dean Foods, the nation's largest milk bottler, now comes exclusively
from cows not treated with the hormone.
In the face of all this, officials at St. Louis based Monsanto say their decision to exit the rBGH
business was not related to retail trends, and claim that business for Prosilac remains brisk
although it has not released recent sales numbers.
Use of rBGH was approved by the FDA in 1993. It was one of the first applications of genetic
engineering used in food production. Although injecting rBGH into cows results in increased milk
production by about a gallon a day, it has always been a tough sell to dairy farmers because use
of the hormone causes a cow's useful life to be shortened and compromised. The list of issues
resulting from rBGH includes reproductive complications, lameness, pus in the milk, and higher
rates of udder infections that must be treated with powerful antibiotics.
In humans consuming milk from rBGH treated cows, the outcomes may be even worse. Milk from
injected cows contains high levels of insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) that some believe is a
promoter of cancer. Although no cause and effect relationship has been established, 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. IGF-1 is also immunogenic and may pose a threat to
people with overactive immune systems.
Use of rBGH is also hard on many farmers since it artificially increases the supply of milk on the
market, driving down prices paid to smaller farmers and giving large farmers using confinement a
competitive edge.
Consumers have been wary of rBGH since its introduction. Polls have consistently shown that 80
to 95 percent of people want mandatory labeling on dairy products made from rBHG so they can
avoid buying them. But the FDA has consistently ignored the wishes of the taxpayers it works for
and is mandated to protect, and declared that it would not require labeling, thus keeping
consumers from knowing what they are buying.
In response to the FDA ruling, activists dumped hormone containing milk outside supermarkets
across the country. Many dairies refused to use rBGH and demanded the ability to label their
products as rBGH free, leading Monsanto to respond by lobbying the federal government to
allow rBGH and genetic engineering in organics and to outlaw rBGH labels.
When the FDA and the FTC balked, Monsanto turned to lobbying state legislatures to get its
way. But irate consumers have made their voices heard, as the recent legislation introduced in
New York exemplifies
About the author
Barbara is a school psychologist, a published author in the area of personal finance, a breast
cancer survivor using "alternative" treatments, a born existentialist, and a student of nature and
all things natural.