 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Frequently Asked Questions About rBGH
our position on labeling and rBGH
What is rBST or rBGH?
Bovine somatotropin (BST) is a protein hormone naturally produced in the pituitary glands of cattle. Monsanto developed a recombinant version, rBST, by using a genetically engineered E. coli bacteria. Sold under the brand name “Posilac,” it is injected into cows to boost milk output in the short term. This practice is coming under increasing scrutiny. rBST is also known as rBGH (recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone).
How does rBST affect the animals that receive this drug?
Posilac packaging lists many possible side effects of the drug, including reduced pregnancy rates, visibly abnormal milk, hoof disorders and a need for more drug treatments for health problems. Cows treated with rBST face a nearly 25% increase in the risk of clinical mastitis, a 40% reduction in fertility, and 55% increase risk of lameness. (The Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research, 2003)
Why is increased chance of infections like mastitis a problem?
In addition to the needless suffering of the animal, increased incidence of infections could lead to increased use of antibiotics and an increased risk of antimicrobial residues in milk and to antibiotic resistant bacteria. (“Report on Public Health Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotropin,” issued March 15-16, 1999, p.16, and available from The European Commission—Food Safety.)
The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend that “Decreasing unnecessary or inappropriate antibiotic use, in humans and animals, will decrease the resistance pressure on the treated organisms. Ongoing efforts. . .are needed. . .so that the efficacy of antibiotics is preserved as long as possible.”
Is rBST allowed for use in other countries?
The product is already prohibited in Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and in the 27 countries of the European Union.
How does rBST affect milk production?
rBST is known to increase the levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) in cows, which can lead to increased IGF-1 in milk. (“Report on Public Health Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotropin,” issued March 15-16, 1999, and available from The European Commission—Food Safety.)
What are the concerns about IGF-1 in milk?
Many studies have noted some links associated between IGF-1 levels and increased risk of cancer, especially breast and prostate cancer. (Holmes, Pollak, et. al. “Dietary Correlates of Plasma Insulin-like Growth Factor I and Insulin-like Growth Factor Binding Protein 3 Concentrations” Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention, Sept. 2002, p. 852-861; Chan, Stampfer, et. al.“Plasma Insulin-like Growth Factor-I and Prostate Cancer Risk: A Prospective Study,” Science, January, 1998, p 563-566; Yu, Jin, et. al, Insulin-like Growth Factors and Breast Cancer Risk in Chinese Women, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention, August 2002, p. 705-712.)
What other potential problems have come up?
Studies of animals exposed to rBST raise concerns about potential changes in milk protein that could lead to allergies. (“Report on Public Health Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotropin,” issued March 15-16, 1999, p. 17, and available from The European Commission—Food Safety.)
What do milk and milk product labels need to say about not using rBST?
Labels must be truthful and not misleading. To avoid misleading consumers, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance from February 1994 suggests a label statement such as: “from cows not treated with rbST” or other truthful description.
As recently as August 2007, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and FDA rejected a request for new restrictions on rBST marketing claims at the federal level. The FTC stated “food companies may inform consumers in advertising, as in labeling, that they do not use rBST.”
How does this issue compare with other types of truthful labeling statements?
Even if there is not currently any laboratory test that can distinguish between milk produced with rBST, and milk produced without rBST, other food labels regularly include truthful statements that are not verified by laboratories. Examples include: state or country of origin, type of water, such as spring or well, specific names of wines, such as Riesling, that must have at least 90% Riesling grapes, and statements about the age of products such as cheese or whiskey. It's not right to single out dairy as requiring a lab test for truthful statements about production practices.
Our Position on Labeling and rBGH
As citizens taking responsibility for our health, our children’s health, and the health of the environment:
We want MORE information about our food on packages, NOT LESS.
The "produced without hormones" claim is accurate and useful for consumers that support certain agricultural practices. We have the right to know what is used to produce the food we eat. We need the information to identify foods we choose, be they sodium-free, made without added sugar, or produced without synthetic hormones. Human health crises are growing, and the FDA, according to their own report, lacks the funds for research and regulation to protect us. We must take responsibility for our own health.
Don’t hide production practices from us -- especially those that are controversial!
We want to be more connected with our food, which means developing better partnerships with farmers. Farmers and citizens must try to understand each other’s concerns.
We want to be assured that government advisory boards are balanced and fair!
A Consumers Union survey found that 88% of people agreed that “milk from cows raised without synthetic bovine growth hormone should be allowed to be labeled as such.” Another professional survey by Lake Research Partners for Food and Water Watch found 80% feeling the same way.
Labeling gag rules proposed in several states have been instigated by Monsanto, the hormone’s only manufacturer, and its supporters. One corporation shouldn’t have the right to take away our right to know and freedom of speech. These rules are not representative of American citizens. Labeling is a consumer issue. We demand transparency and balance. We demand the ethical treatment of animals. There is no doubt that rBGH increases disease rates in dairy cows. The health risks to animals are listed right on the package – an FDA requirement. The average life of an rBGH cow is only three lactations. This is unacceptable. Virtually every animal protection agency opposes the use of rBGH.
We want our government agencies to give priority to citizen health over corporate profits.
There is substantial scientific evidence that rBGH may increase antibiotic resistance and cancer rates in humans. rBGH treated cows show an elevated level of Insulin-Like Growth Factor (IGF-1) in their milk. Studies have suggested that IGF-1 promotes tumor growth. Until more facts are known, it is not acceptable to expose people to elevated levels of IGF-1 – and if the government will not stop its use, individuals should be informed adequately to avoid the risk.
Health Care Without Harm, an international coalition of over 440 organizations that promotes safe and healthy practices in hospitals, adopted a formal position statement opposing rBGH. Canada, the European Union, The United Nations and many scientists in the U.S. challenge the safety of the use of rBGH. Why should any state government feel they must advocate for it, and hide it from citizens?
You can find more information at the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility – Campaign for Safe Food. http://www.oregonpsr.org/programs/campaignSafeFood.html