Content area
Full Text
On November 5, 1993, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) for use in the United States. This synthetic hormone which increases milk production in cows is one of the first products of biotechnology to appear in our food supply. Its use has sparked a bitter controversy which has spilled over into Canada, where rBGH is now under review by government drug regulators (although Canadians could now be consuming rBGH-produced dairy products imported from the US).
Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH), sometimes called Bovine Somatotropin (BST), is a natural protein made by cows. Recombinant BGH (rBGH) is a genetically engineered, synthetic version of the hormone. It is injected every 14 days into dairy cows for 200 days of a 335-day lactation cycle. The use of this hormone is expected to increase milk production five to fifteen percent.
Supporters of rBGH use argue that rBGH is a naturally occurring substance; that the extra milk is needed to feed the hungry, both in the United States and in Third World countries; and that increased milk production will make farmers more competitive. But critics take issue with all of these claims, and have doubts that the use of this substance is good for cows or milk-drinkers.
Drug companies such as Monsanto, Up-john, Eli Lilly, and American Cyanamid have invested millions of dollars into university and field testing of rBGH and claim a "right" to obtain returns on their enormous investment.(f.1) According to one senior scientist who ran tests on the product, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which recently approved the rBGH for use, has become an arm of the drug companies. Dr. Richard Burroughs, former FDA staff veterinarian and senior scientist, says the FDA's review and approval process is a sham. Burroughs was fired on November 3, 1989 for slowing down the rBGH approval process.(f.2)
British scientists Dr. Eric Millstone and Dr. Eric Bruner, who were hired by Monsanto to review data on rBGH, were prevented from releasing findings that showed a definite increase in mastitis in cows treated with the product. Monsanto claimed it was unethical for Millstone and Bruner to release their findings before the original investigators had a chance to publish, but publication of the original material had...