Powered By Produce

I thought that by now nearly everyone had heard about hormones in milk. Yet, people continue to buy conventional milk! I’m baffled. Maybe more explanation will finally wake people up about this?!

Bovine Growth Hormone
Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH), or Bovine Somatotropin (BST), is a protein hormone that cattle naturally produce. Back in 1937, it was found that injecting this hormone (extracted from cadaver cows) increased lactating cows’ milk production by preventing mammary cell death. There was very limited use of this technique until the 1980′s when the practice began to increase.

In 1994, agribusiness giant Monsanto (one of Powered By Produce’s arch nemesises!) artificially synthesized this hormone using recombinant DNA technology and called it recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rBST), also called recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) .

How it works
An average dairy cow begins her lactation with a moderate daily level of milk production. This daily output increases until, at about 70 days into the lactation, production peaks. From that time until the cow is dry, production slowly decreases. This increase and decrease in production is partially caused by the count of milk-producing cells in the udder. Cell counts begin at a moderate number, increase during the first part of the lactation, then decrease as the lactation proceeds. Once lost, these cells generally do not regrow until the next lactation.

Farmers are recommended to make the first rBGH application about 50 days into the cow’s lactation, just before she peaks. The rBGH then sustains already-present mammary cells, limiting the rate of production decrease after production peaks. After the peak, production declines with or without application of rBGH, but declines more slowly with rBGH than without. This decrease in the rate of production decline permits dairy cows to produce more milk over the span of a lactation – at its best, this will be seen by seven to eight more pounds of milk being produced per day than would be produced without rBGH.

The controversy
Increased use of rBGH has caused health problems for the animals and has resulted in “additives” to our milk (among them: rising levels of pus, antibiotics residues, and a cancer-accelerating hormone called IGF-1).

Animals
Whenever cows are forced to produce more milk, they become more susceptible to udder infections called mastitis. Mastitis is a condition which can increase the amount of cow’s pus which ends up in the milk. (Yes, PUS IN YOUR MILK!)

Monsanto’s own data shows that there is a 79% increase in mastitis (udder infections) and a resulting 19% increase in somatic cell counts (pus & bacteria in the milk). In fact, the warning label on Monsanto’s Posilac drug (their brand name for rBGH) explicitly states:

“Cows injected with POSILAC are at an increased risk for clinical mastitis (visibly abnormal milk). The number of cows affected with clinical mastitis and the number of cases per cow may increase…. In some herds, use of POSILAC has been associated with increases in somatic cell counts [pus & bacteria].”

The warning label goes on to say:

“Cows injected with POSILAC may experience periods of increased body temperature unrelated to illness… Use of POSILAC may result in an increase in digestive disorders such as indigestion, bloat, and diarrhea…. Studies indicated that cows injected with POSILAC had increased numbers of enlarged hocks and lesions (e.g., lacerations, enlargements, calluses) of the knee…and…of the foot region.”

And true to American agricultural form, instead of removing the offending factor from the equation, we just pump more antibiotics in to the cows’ diet to combat the infections caused by the rBGH. (Really makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?) Antibiotics that leave residues in our milk. Mmmm…

Humans
The growth hormone also stimulates an increase in insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) in the cow’s milk. Recently, Eli Lily & Co, a manufacturer of rBGH, reported a ten-fold increase in IGF-1 levels in milk of cows receiving rBGH. The IGF-1 protein is identical in both cows and humans and it is not destroyed by pasteurization. (Some sources even say that the pasteurization process actually increases IGF-1 levels in milk.)  Nor is it destroyed during digestion. Instead, it is readily absorbed across the intestinal wall.  (Some research shows that it can be absorbed in the bloodstream as well.)  And while IGF-1 is naturally present in humans, research suggests that elevated levels are associated with breast, colon, and prostate cancers.

Monsanto’s own tests, conducted in 1987, demonstrated that statistically significant growth stimulating effects were induced in organs of adult rats by feeding IGF-1 at low dose levels for only two weeks. While there is no evidence that this same effect occurs in humans, the Cancer Prevention Coalition concludes that, “Drinking rBGH milk would thus be expected to significantly increase IGF-1 blood levels and consequently to increase risks of developing breast cancer and promoting its invasiveness.” The Harvard-based Nurses’ Health Study found higher blood levels of IGF-1 in women with breast cancer than in those without. Studies suggest that pre-menopausal women below 50 years old with high levels of IGF-1 are seven times more likely to develop breast cancer. Men are four times more likely to develop prostate cancer.

Labels
A milk carton from Maine’s Oakhurst Dairy stating, “Our Farmers’ Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones” became the subject of controversy on July 3, 2003 when the dairy was sued by Monsanto over their labels. Oakhurst eventually settled, agreeing to add a sentence saying that ‘according to the FDA no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBGH-treated and non-treated cows.’ But this statement is simply not true. Both Monsanto and FDA scientists have acknowledged the increase of IGF-1 in milk from treated cows. Higher amounts of pus and antibiotic residues in the milk were noted are as well.

This misleading addition to the label was written by the FDA’s deputy commissioner of policy, Michael Taylor, previously Monsanto’s outside attorney who, after running policy at the FDA, became vice president of Monsanto. (Could this revolving door between Monsanto and the government regulators be the one of the reasons why the FDA isn’t protecting US consumers?)

Corruption
In the late 1980s, one FDA scientist was fired after expressing concerns about possible health problems related rBGH-treated cows. Other like-minded FDA scientists had been stripped of responsibilities or forced out. Remaining FDA whistle-blowers wrote an anonymous letter to Congress, complaining of fraud and conflict of interest at the agency.

In 1997, the potential link between rBGH and cancer was one of the topics revealed in a four-part news series set to air by a Tampa-based Fox TV station. Just before the series was shown, however, Fox received letters from Monsanto’s attorney, threatening “dire consequences for Fox News.” The show was postponed indefinitely. The reporters who had created the series later testified that they were offered hush money to leave the station and never speak about the story again. (They declined.) [Watch a 10 minute video about this Monsanto/Fox News scandal.]

In 1998, six Canadian government scientists testified before their Senate that they were being pressured by superiors to approve rBGH, even though they believed it was unsafe. They also testified that documents were stolen from a locked file cabinet and that Monsanto offered them a bribe of $1-2 million to approve the drug. Monsanto responded to the alleged bribe, claiming that the scientists misunderstood an offer for research money. (Later in 2005, Monsanto was fined $1.5M for offering bribes to 140 Indonesians, as the company tried to gain approval for their genetically modified cotton.)

Progress (sort of)
Growth hormone producers were unsuccessful in banning “rBGH free” labels on a national level, so they have now taken their fight to the state level. Currently, Ohio is considering legislation that would prohibit the use of the “rBGH-free” label. Countries around the world have completely banned rBGH from being used in cows as long ago as 1990. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and the whole European Union all prevent rBGH from being used in their countries (and prevent imports of dairy from the US containing rBGH). The United States is more than a decade behind and now there’s a chance that we might not even know when this drug is used in the milk we drink if this Ohio rule stands.

With the spread of information about rBST, there has been a widespread consumer demand for hormone-free milk. Many large corporations (WalMart, Starbucks, Kroger, Dannon, and Yoplait, for example) have completely removed hormone treated milk due to consumer demand. This goes to show that consumers are still at the top of the food chain. We can dictate the direction of this fight!

What you can do

• - Look for “rBGH-free” labels on all of your dairy products.
• - Purchase USDA certified organic milk. To be certified organic, cows can not be treated with growth hormones.
• * (It is important to note that “rBGH-free” and “organic” labels have absolutely nothing to do with humane treatment of the animals.)
• - Choose dairy alternatives such as soy milk, rice milk, almond milk, or hemp milk.
• - Let your grocer/coffee shop/deli/ice cream parlor know that you want hormone-free dairy products!

*Note* Throughout this post I solely referred to “milk” but the truth is that effects of rBGH apply to all dairy products including cheese, yogurt, butter, and ice cream. (Imported European cheeses are rBGH free because the EU has banned rBGH.)

____________________
Breakfast: Strawberries and cherries
Lunch: Amy’s burrito and more cherries (I love cherry season!)
Dinner: Mini pizza made on a whole wheat tortilla with tomato sauce and Daiya vegan mozzarella. After I took the picture, I added some dried basil & oregano.

Related Posts:

• Why Are Vegetarians So Depressing?
• Scandal: The USDA’s Conflict Over Cheese
• Cheese Addiction Rehab Program