Fwd: GMW:_FDA,_Monsanto_need_to_reveal_truth_about_GM_cattle_drug

[Guest guest]

GMW:_FDA,_Monsanto_need_to_reveal_truth_about_GM_cattle_drug

" GM_WATCH "

Tue, 3 Feb 2004 15:49:03 GMT

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

This genetically engineered cattle drug is banned both in Canada and the

European Union and now Monsanto has drastically cut back on supplies to US

farmers.

---

FDA, Monsanto need to reveal truth about growth hormone

By Peter Hardin

The Capital Times, February 2, 2004

http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/column/guest/66560.php

 

Monsanto has announced a 50 percent cutback in sales of its recombinant [is

genetically engineered] bovine growth hormone. The veterinary drug is

trademarked and sold as Posilac.

 

About 22 percent of U.S. dairy cows receive Posilac injections every two weeks,

to boost milk output.

 

What's gone wrong with Monsanto's rbGH?

 

This biotech cow hormone has rocked the dairy industry and consumers since the

mid-1980s. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration admits the hormone has been its

biggest-ever consumer food safety controversy. Monsanto's rbGH was the first

major biotech food production " tool " approved by the FDA.

 

Three potential problem areas come to mind: human safety, animal safety and

quality control.

 

In my opinion, the FDA's human safety oversight of rbGH has been flawed from the

beginning.

 

In the mid-1980s, the FDA failed to require a mandatory residue test for rbGH.

Yet Monsanto and government officials claim there is " no difference " in the milk

from untreated and rbGH-injected cows.

 

To counter intense public skepticism about rbGH, the FDA published a 10-page

summary of its human safety determinations in the journal Science in August

1990. Among the findings, the agency said that the rbGH in the milk of injected

cows was degraded by commercial pasteurization. The sole research cited for this

claim was that of a Canadian graduate student, whose master's thesis studied the

feeding of rbGH-derived milk to calves (not humans). This study erroneously

heated milk for 30 minutes at the 15-second pasteurization

temperature.

 

The greatest human safety issue regarding consumption of milk from rbGH-injected

cows focuses on a secondary hormone: insulin-like growth factor-one, called

IGF-1.

 

Growth hormones (natural and synthetic) regulate bodily production of IGF-1.

IGF-1 is a miraculous, blood-borne " messenger " hormone that regulates

cellular growth and function. Increased growth hormone levels (natural or

synthetic) mean more IGF-1-spurring metabolism in mammary tissue, bones and

elsewhere.

 

Structurally, IGF-1 is identical for cows and humans. Some IGF-1 naturally

occurs in cow's milk. Data suggest higher IGF-1 levels are found in

rbGH-injected cows' milk, compared to normal milk. Thousands of research studies

probing potential links between IGF-1 and cancer development have

been published in scientific and medical journals.

 

With regard to animal safety, injections of rbGH spur dairy cow metabolism.

One-third more blood is pumped through injected cows' hearts. This synthetic

hormone is so powerful it kills muscle tissue at injection sites.

 

In early 1990, my newspaper, The Milkweed, published stolen Monsanto animal

health research files. Those files showed dramatic increases in weights of many

key organs and glands of treated cows, compared to control groups.

 

Increased IGF-1 circulating in rbGH-injected cows' milk leaves mammary tissue

and bones at greater risk for health problems, according to Michael Hansen of

the Consumers Union. The modern U.S. dairy cow is under many stresses, even

before she may be poked with Monsanto's biotech hormone to induce greater milk

output.

 

Two instances of rbGH quality control problems have surfaced.

 

In summer 1993 - just before the FDA's approval of recombinant bovine growth

hormone - confidential company documents revealed nearly a ton of dry rbGH

had been contaminated at the manufacturing plant in Austria.

 

And in 1994, Monsanto scientist Bernard Violand reported aberrant amino acid

sequences - an unintended result that his article in Protein Science

acknowledged researchers did not fully understand.

 

Making batches of recombinant hormones using E. coli as media is not like making

Jell-O.

 

What's gone wrong with Monsanto's rbGH? Synthetic hormones used in our

food-producing livestock pose risks too serious to cover up. If a serious

problem exists, why has only 50 percent of rbGH sales been curtailed, instead of

100 percent? Consumers and dairy farmers deserve a complete and honest

explanation of why the FDA has restricted this drug.

 

A perceived cover-up by the FDA and Monsanto will only invite legal challenges

and worst-case rumors. Biotechnology's long-term interests are best served by

full disclosure.

 

Peter Hardin lives near Brooklyn. He is the editor/publisher of The Milkweed, a

monthly milk pricing report.

 

-----------------------

SUBSCRIPTIONS

-----------------------

 

http://www.gmwatch.org/sub.asp

 

archive

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive.asp

 

website

http://www.gmwatch.org

 

communications

ngin

 

donations to 'NGIN'

NGIN, 26 Pottergate, Norwich, NR2 1DX, UK

or e-mail for details: ngin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!