There's nothing like a snack of cookies and a tall, icy
cold glass of rbGH-fortified milk.
There’s something interesting going on in Kansas, right now. Actually, if you follow politics, there’s always something interesting going on in Kansas and this matter involves both politics and food. Once again, the issue of whether organic milk producers can legally label their milk as being free from synthetic growth hormones is on the table, and proponents of both sides of the matter are not going to let the issue go without a little bloodletting.
Yesterday representatives from both sides of the issue met in Topeka to testify on Kansas Administrative Regulation 4-7-723. According to the organization Food and Water Watch, in a letter to Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sibelius, the proposed regulation “would ban labels such as ‘rbGH-free,’ ‘rbST free, ’or‘ no artificial growth hormones,’ on dairy products and would require a disclaimer in certain font size when a label states ‘from cows not treated with rbGH.’”
For clarity’s sake, rbGH is shorthand for recombinant bovine growth hormone, a synthetic form of the naturally occurring bovine growth hormone which, as you would expect, promotes growth. More specifically, rbGH actually prevents mammary cell death. Farmers who use rbGH (which is sold under the commercial name Posilac) begin injecting cattle every two weeks with the synthetic hormone when the cows reach their peak production cycle. By doing so, farmers are able to keep milk production at a high level over a longer period of time, increasing milk production by as much as 10 to 20 percent. That may not sound like much, but over a long period of time, injected into a great many cows, it accounts for $250 to $300 million a year, according to writer and nutrition professor Marion Nestle.
On one side of the argument in Topeka are various consumer groups, retailers, and environmental and agricultural organizations such as Consumers Union, Food and Water Watch, Whole Foods Markets, Organic Trade Association, the Sierra Club, and Kansas Rural Center. On the other side, American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology (AFACT), Monsanto Corporation, and Elanco, the agricultural division of pharmaceutical giant Eli Lily and Co. Although, according to the Associated Press, AFACT is sponsored in part by Monsanto, you won’t find that information on AFACT’s web site. You won’t find Monsanto - or Elanco - mentioned at all, actually.
Tomorrow, we’ll look at why rbGH is so controversial.
Comments
Good god what the hell have I been drinking. organic milk should be milk from cows that are drug free period- no exceptions- I hate those weasels!
AmerKiwi, there's an enormous amount at stake for both sides. Many farmers, in particular, are fearful of losing their livelihood. As milk has become cheaper - recent increases aside - farmers feel they have to produce more in order to stay ahead. That's where drugs like rbGH come in, but we'll look into that tomorrow.
I in no way mean to support monsanto. I think that they are unethical bullies who refuse to be transparent in their buisness. That being said however, I am concerned about Americans fears of rbGH. These fears seem to be evidence of just how poor our science education is. First off, the reason why rgBH is not harmful for human consumption in milk is for the same reason that insulin must be injected. Insulin and rgBH are both peptide hormones. In fact they are oligopeptides of over 100 amino acids each. The digestive system can at maximum absorb an oligopeptide of 6 amino acids into the bloodstream through transcytosis. In order to break large peptide chains such as protiens and peptide hormones into absorbable sizes, it makes use of endo and exopeptidases. Even before that, the low pH of the stomach denatures the peptide, rendering it useless. An analogy would be this. Suppose you want to transport a car through a pipe line. The car is too big to fit in the pipe, so first you stretch it out into a long strand (like the denaturation of a protein or peptide.) The car at this point should not work anymore. But it still wouln't fit, so you disassemble it into the gears and nuts and bolts (exo and endopeptidase activity. Now the car can fit into the tiny pores of the pipeline. The same is true of the digestive system. This is what would happen to rgBH or insulin if you mearly ingested it. It would not enter your bloodstream in anything resembling its original state or function (like the car which is now just nuts, bolts, and gears.) Hormones travel through the bloodstream to reach their target and have an effect. That is why insulin is injected - it is the only current way known to get it to the bloodstream intact. For the same reason, farmer inject rgBH into their cows, because if the cow were to ingest rgBH instead, there would be no effect. I hope this clears things up. You have no reason to worry about rgBH in your milk. And I still dislike Monsanto's bullying practices.
Andy, thanks for your thoughtful input. Your breakdown of rbGH is helpful and gives readers a better idea of what and how rbGH does what it does.
But I would add, as I do in the following day's post, it isn't so much rbGH itself that causes that problem - although it does pose problems of its own - it's the longer term consequences that are most worrisome. The heavy use of antibiotics that follow the high incidents of mastitis, as just one example, prove bad both for the cow and the consumer.
Perhaps even more absurd is the industry's more recent claims that rbGH is actually good for the environment because with fewer cows producing more milk than they're naturally designed to do, there's a lesser impact on the environment. Never mind the longterm health consequences of their products.
Even if rbGH itself were completely harmless, its potential for wider harm requires closer scrutiny.
I have heard horror stories of what rgBH does to cows (ulcers on their udders) but have not yet done any research to confirm this. If this is true than I am disgusted. I agree with your outrage at Monsanto's claim that rgBH = fewer cows = good for environment. However, the most disgusting of their practices in my opinion is their attempt to ban rgBH free labels from milk. Though I insist that rgBH is not harmful when ingested, I believe that consumers have a right to be notified of what they are consuming. Additionally, there is a market for rgBH-free milk. Farmers who produce rgBH-free milk should have a right to tap into this market. By attempting to ban the rgBH-free label, Monsanto is engaging in unethical buisness activity, bullying, and compromising the free-market economy in the milk industry. Its deplorable.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!