got rBGH?

[Guest guest]

FDA, Monsanto need to reveal truth about growth hormone

 

The Capital Times

Madison, Wisconsin

 

By Peter Hardin

February 2, 2004

 

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

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.