JUNE 1994 - VOLUME 15 - NUMBER 6
B I O P I R A C Y
JUNE 1994 - VOLUME 15 - NUMBER 6
Monkeying With the Milkby Aaron FreemanWhen faced with consumer opposition to new products that pose health, environmental or social risks, corporate advocates of these products often point to the benefits society enjoys from such high-technology goods. To oppose the new product is to oppose higher living standards and longer life spans, they say; they label product opponents "Luddites," and dismiss them as out of step with modern society. Such a conflict is now being waged over the genetically-engineered recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH), also know as recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST). While the product risks injecting new health hazards into the U.S. milk supply and worsening the plight of farmers struggling to make ends meet, it offers very few benefits to society, except to a small group of large chemical manufacturers, for which the rewards could be immense. One company in particular, the St.Louis-based Monsanto Corporation, has campaigned aggressively for the product, enlisting the support of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and trying to intimidate those who would stand in the way of the company reaping its share of an expected $500 million in annual rbGH sales. The politics of "efficiency" February 3, 1994 marked the entrance of rbGH to the U.S. market. According to industry claims, when injected into dairy cows, rbGH boosts milk yields by 10 to 25 percent. Monsanto is initially marketing the hormone under the trade name Posilac, but other companies, including Upjohn, Eli Lilly and American Cyanamid, are lining up to market similar versions of rbGH. Monsanto has sunk $300 million into developing rbGH, a high-stakes gamble that it hopes will pave the way for about 60 other genetically engineered agricultural products that it and other companies in the biotechnology industry plan to introduce in the next few years. The industry fears that consumer rejection of rbGH will lead to the failure of these other genetically-engineered products. The company claims that its product increases cow's milk productivity by 15 percent. "The only way which farmers [and J consumers can gain is if efficiency is increased," says Monsanto's Director of Biotechnology Communications Thomas J. McDermott. "And that's what this product enables them to do." But because there is already a huge surplus of milk produced in the United States, a boost in milk production would be a boon to neither U.S. farmers nor U.S. consumers. The federal government spends approximately $1 billion each year to sop up the surplus milk, mostly in the form of butter. The introduction of rbGH has already exacerbated the surplus problem. Surpluses generated in part by the introduction of rbGH have led processors in California and Texas to dump raw milk in May 1994, the Texas-based Associated Milk Producers dumped 11 trailers of milk, valued at more than $70,000. The organization Rural Vermont notes that the rise in U.S. milk production has been most pronounced in states where rbGH use is highest. While an increase in surplus means lower prices paid to farmers for their milk, it will not translate into lower milk prices at the supermarket. Michael K. Hansen, a research associate with the Consumer Union's Consumer Policy Institute and author of "Biotechnology & Milk: Benefit or Threat? An Analysis of Issues Related to bGH/bST Use in the Dairy Industry," notes that while the price farmers received for milk fell by 19 percent between 1986 and 1990 due to milk surpluses, the price of milk for consumers actually increased 29 percent. Falling prices paid to farmers for milk have been a major reason why tens of thousands of dairy farmers, the majority of whom have been smaller family farmers, have gone out of business in the past decade. A report on the projected economic impacts of rbGH by the National Family Farm Coalition notes, "Even a small increase in dairy production will hurt the volatile dairy economy." The study reports that, in 1990, a mere 3 percent increase in milk surplus resulted in a 30 percent drop in income for dairy farmers. The report predicted that with the introduction of rbGH, the average income for farmers will drop $10,000 to $30,000 per farm. Farmers pay for the federal buyout caused by an rbGH-induced surplus in production regardless of whether they use rbGH or not. The annual federal buyout of milk surpluses comes out of the paychecks of farmers (the federal government allocates a limited amount of money for the buyout, so if there is a higher surplus, farmers are paid less per gallon for their milk). Thus, farmers are caught in a catch-22: use rbGH, or watch as their neighbors use it to boost their production. Processors, on the other hand, reap the benefits of higher surpluses, since they are then able to pay less to farmers for milk. According to the Wisconsin-based Family Farm Defenders Family Farm Defenders, the large dairy processors worked in tandem with Monsanto to promote rbGH, although the Dairy Coalition, which represents the major dairy processors and producers, has remained officially neutral on the issue of rbGH. Monsanto's McDermott acknowledges that farmers who do not use rbGH "are going to be under pressure ... to match up in terms of efficiency." But, he adds, "That is a feature that's shared by all new technologies that increase efficiencies in any system." Compounding the problem further are health concerns among the general public over rbGH, which farmers fear could lead to lower consumption of dairy products. The National Family Farm Coalition report states, "If consumers reject dairy products because of rbGH, farmers will pay for it - perhaps with their farms and their livelihoods." The report cites polls by the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board, the Washington State Dairy Promotion Board and the Virginia Polytechnic Institute, the University of Wisconsin and the University of Vermont, all of which indicate a rejection by consumers of products known to be produced with rbGH. Tainted milk Consumers have good reason to be concerned about the health impact of rbGH on the U.S. dairy supply. Concerns over the safety of rbGH have led to bans on the use of the hormone in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and three provinces of Canada. A 1990 Monsanto-sponsored study published in the journal Science noted a 75 percent increase of insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) in rbGH-treated cows. "IGF-1 is of concern for human health. Besides its effect on human metabolism, IGF-1 has been associated with the growth of numerous tumors, including colon, smooth muscle, breast, and others," Hansen told the Canadian Parliament's Agriculture Committee. Hansen's testimony also cited data from Monsanto that indicated that rbGH decreased milk quality and shortened shelf life. The FDA's studies, released after it approved Monsanto's rbGH brand Posilac, concluded that cows treated with Posilac suffered from a 79 percent increase in the risk of clinical mastitis (udder infections) and an 81 percent increase in the risk of subclinical mastitis, both of which result in abnormalities in milk. Monsanto refused to release the results of its health studies on rbGH to Vermont's Senate and House Committees on Agriculture in 1991, or to the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) in 1992. The studies, finally released in December 1992, showed that seven times as many mastitis cases were reported in cows treated with rbGH than in those who were untreated. Moreover, the mastitis in rbGH-treated cows lasted six times longer than in those not injected. The FDA and Monsanto are fully aware of the dangers of increased incidence of mastitis with the use of rbGH. Posilac packages are accompanied by an FDA-mandated warning that states: "Use of Posilac is associated with increased frequency of medication in cows for mastitis and other health problems." Mastitis is treated with antibiotics. While the Food and Drug Administration has approved 30 antibiotics for use on cows, dozens of other antibiotics, widely available in farm supply stores, but illegal for use in cows, are commonly used. Even before the use of rbGH, the GAO, the Wall Street Journal, the Center for Science in the Public Interest and Consumer Reports magazine, which each tested milk samples in separate studies, all reported harmful drug residues in the milk supply. The GAO report notes that some of the human health hazards that result from low levels of animal drugs include:
The GAO report also states that "the emergence of antimicrobial resistant bacteria linked to the use of antibiotics on dairy cows ... could increase the risk of human infection." Monsanto claims in promotional material that "Milk is carefully tested throughout its passage from the farm to the store to guarantee that it is fresh, healthy and safe. ... [A] comprehensive government monitoring system assures milk safety." But while milk is routinely tested for residues, the FDA generally tests for only four types of antibiotics. Both the GAO and the Milk Industry Foundation, which reports on drug testing, have found that a wide variety of drugs are used and not tested for. Thus, an increased use of antibiotics in response to a rise in rbGH-induced mastitis would likely go undetected in the milk supply. The GAO expressed deep concerns about the "much higher incidence of mastitis occurring in cows treated with rbGH" in an August 6, 1992 report. It called for "discontinu[ing] the marketing of food products from rbGH-tested animals until the potential risk concerning increased antibiotic levels has been evaluated." In a March 1993 letter to U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, GAO Assistant Comptroller General Eleanor Chelimsky said that "the increase in mastitis levels reported in the rbGH pivotal studies suggests that the potential for an increase in milk antibiotic levels is very real." The GAO asked, "How can a food safety determination be made when the rbGHmastitis-antibiotic issue has not been addressed, much less resolved?" "Farmers don't want to use a product that will increase mastitis by 79 percent," says Jane Kochersperger, outreach coordinator with the National Family Farm Coalition. "They don't want to have sick cows; they can't afford it." The right to choose The GAO advised a labeling scheme for rbGH-produced dairy foods. In the letter to Shalala, Chelimsky stated, "We believe' that consumers have the right to know when food products are produced from animal trials so they can determine whether to buy these products and possibly incur health risks. ... This is a recom mendation that should hardly be difficult to implement." Transferring the right to choose to consumers, however, could be a major setback for Monsanto. In a survey of 1,000 residents of Wisconsin -a major dairy-producing state - 75 percent of those surveyed would pay an additional 44 cents per gallon for non-rbGH milk. In a separate survey of-Wisconsin residents, 88 percent favor mandatory labeling of rbGH products. Monsanto has responded to these consumer fears with an aggressive strategy of suing businesses and institutions which have labeled their milk products rbGH-free. The company has sued Davenport, Iowa-based Swiss Valley Farms, a dairy cooperative with 2,500 members in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri and Illinois, and the Waco, Texas-based Pure Milk and Ice Cream Co. for labeling their dairy products rbGH-free. (Because the technology for testing for rbGH has not yet been developed, the labeling involves obtaining pledges from farmers not to use the hormone.) In February 1994, Monsanto sent 2,000 letters to retailers letting them know about the first lawsuit and reminding them to obey federal labeling guidelines. Monsanto claims that it does not oppose voluntary labeling. Monsanto's McDermott says that the company objected to the method of advertising and promotion that the two companies used, which the company claims was "false and deceptive." When asked to elaborate, McDermott declined further comment on the lawsuits. The FDA has warned retailers not to label the milk without an accompanying statement such as "No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST treated and non-rbST-treated cows," so as to "put the I labeling I claim in proper context." According to an FDA statement on labeling, the agency is concerned that "unqualified statements may imply that milk from untreated cows is safer or of higher quality than milk from treated cows. Such an implication would be false and misleading." These FDA guidelines have been treated by Monsanto and some states as binding regulations. FDA tactics have been reinforced by those of several state departments of agriculture. According to a June 1993 position statement of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA), "NASDA strongly opposes" the concept of voluntary labeling and is "encouraging FDA to disallow the use of voluntary labeling." Monsanto and the FDA The official responsible for the FDA labeling policy is Michael R. Taylor, a former partner of the Washington, D.C. law firm King & Spalding. As a partner of the firm, Taylor represented Monsanto during the FDA approval process of rbGH, and the firm continues to represent Monsanto in its lawsuits against companies which are labeling milk rbGH-tree. The author of the FDA's position on labeling is Dr. Margaret Miller, who also worked for Monsanto as a researcher on rbGH. A March 1994 anonymous letter sent to Representative Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, from concerned employees of the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) says, "At the time [ Miller ] wrote the FDA opinion on labeling, she was still publishing papers with Monsanto scientists on [rbGH]." The letter also expresses concern over a separate policy drafted by Miller on the use of microbials in milk, citing research tactics that were "arbitrary and scientifically unsupported." This policy was later used to counter concerns about increased antibiotic usage in the rbGH approval process. "I don't know whether rbGH-produced milk is tainted or not, but there is growing reason to think the FDA's actions in this matter may have been," says Representative Sanders. "A troubling pattern of unanswered questions is emerging that suggests an altogether too cozy relationship between some FDA officials central to this food safety decision and their close dealings with the Monsanto Company." These concerns led Sanders to ask the GAO, in May 1994, to launch an investigation of the FDA approval process of rbGH, but the investigation will only focus on conflicts of interest involving monetary exchange, not revolving-door improprieties. Food Fight Monsanto's strident campaign has not succeeded in squelching the widespread opposition to rbGH Grocery chains including Giant, Mayfair Food Town, Fresh Fields and Whole Foods Market have responded to consumer pressure by asking their dairies to supply only rhGH-free milk and 17 of the largest U.S. dairies have agreed not to use rbGH. "RbGH is a poorly conceived, risky solution to a problem that never existed," says Alan Parker, special products director at Ben & Jerry's. The company labeled its products "rbGH-fiee" until late-March 1994, when it stopped labeling because it was "uncertain as to how individual states will use FDA guidelines." He adds, "The FDA does not make similar requirements for tuna labeled dolphin-free or other products labeled animal cruelty-free. There seems to be a tremendous amount of attention as to whether we are hurting Monsanto's feelings." A March 1994 Gallup survey indicated that 63 percent of U.S. citizens were aware of the rbGH controversy. And in the month after the February 1994 introduction of rbGH, milk consumption declined by 3.4 percent. "Consumers have followed through with what the surveys show," says Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Pure Food Campaign, an international alliance of consumer and environmental groups undertaking a boycott of genetically-engineered foods. "They're not happy about genetically-engineered foods being unlabeled and if they have a choice, they're not buying them. The problem is that their choice is being completely limited by concerted forces." In April 1994, Maine passed a bill requiring a label on all products produced with rbGH and Vermont enacted legislation for mandatory labeling of non-bGH dairy products. Similar measures are being considered in New York, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, Missouri and California, In March 1994, in support of a labeling scheme for rbGH-produced dairy goods, delegates representing the 253,000 members of the National Farmers Union passed a resolution calling for a boycott on all Monsanto brand names, ranging from agricultural chemicals and feeds to consumer products. "Farmers have the right to tell our customers where they can still buy pure, old-fashioned milk, without added artificial hormones," said Mark A. Kastel, director of governmental affairs for Wisconsin Farmers Union. Tom Sayre, a farmer from Edgerton, Wisconsin, said, "I told Monsanto on their 800 number, that if their product is so great, they should label it [contains synthetic rbGH]; let's let the customer choose. Last year I purchased over $50,000 worth of Lasso, Roundup and other agricultural chemicals from Monsanto. This year, it will be S0." Another Wisconsin farmer, Judy Chandler, said, "We are tired of [Monsanto I trying to force-feed us a product nobody wants." More recently, Representative Sanders introduced a bill to require labeling of rbGH milk and dairy products, and establishing a tax on farmers who use rbGH to subsidize farmers who are put at a disadvantage by refusing to use rbGH. Fighting the food monsters RbGH is a product surrounded by ironic contradictions. It will raise milk production at a time of huge surplus. It will introduce higher rates of disease among dairy herds and increased health risks in the milk supply at a time of rising concerns over the use of chemical additives in foods. Ultimately, virtually everyone stands to lose with rbGH except for a remarkably small group of agri-chemical corporations. Consumers and farmers are mobilizing to ensure that their voices can be heard in this debate, but, according to Cummins, "they are being told to 'shut-up and eat your Frankenfood."
|