Any rBST in your milk?

[gardener]

When I get milk from the grocery store, I choose Horizon or another brand similar in being certifiably organic, meaning among other things that the cows that produced it weren’t fed on or jabbed with antibiotics and hormones. That means that they’re free of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), a genetically engineered growth hormone produced by Monsanto, sold under the trade name Posilac..

Bur Monsanto would just as soon that people like me pay no attention to rBST and milk.

Injecting a cow twice a month with this chemical increases milk production by 15%. Today, 33% of America’s milch cows get the stuff, so it’s a huge market for Monsanto, which put about half a billion dollars in developing Posilac. But there are a lot of holdouts in the dairy industry in Maine.The state certifies some 85% of its dairy products with an official “Quality” seal, meaning, among other things, that it’s free of rBST. Last year Monsanto tried to get the state to stop using this seal. When the state refused, Monsanto brought a lawsuit against Maine’s Oakhurst Dairy, which advertised its milk as hormone free. Monsanto claimed that this was false advertising, since rBST has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and there is no evidence that hormone-free milk is superior to hormone-laden milk. “Milk is milk,” said a Monsanto spokesman succinctly.

The case was settled late last month. From now on, Oakhurst labels will state that its milk is free of artificial hormones. But it will be required to add this additional disclaimer: "FDA states: No significant difference in milk from cows treated with artificial growth hormone."

Lately I kinda wonder exactly who our FDA works so hard to protect.

[poopy pants]

Just encase yourself in a plastic bubble and everything will be okie dokie.

[gardener]

Dear Doctor Soprano,

Here's a reat website you should enjoy--

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/

You might even be able to refine your multitudinous expressions of sarcasm.

[russ]

I'm going to have to agree with Monsanto on this one. It would seem to me that the 'quality' seal carries with it the strong implication that the products which are free of rBST are somehow superior. There really isn't any proof that this is the case and I feel that the 'quality' label is, as such, deceptive to the consumer.

Here are a few articles worth checking out:

http://healthfactsandfears.com/featu...isy091903.html

http://216.239.41.104/custom?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://216.239.41.104/custom?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://216.239.41.104/custom?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Read about the ACSH (the group who producd these articles) here:
http://www.acsh.org/about/index.html

[Kaiser]

Russ, all of the articles you referenced have to do with organic produce and not dairy or meat products. One of the articles even referenced states that plants do not have digestive systems and do not handle nutirents and other ingestibles in the same way. I don't think they are specifically relevant to what the Professor is bringing up in this post.

Politics aside, we have a very large problem in this country when we feed herbivore ruminants carniverous diets in order to 'save money.' Sure, we banned beef imports from Europe to prevent spread of bovine spongiform encephaolpathy ('mad cow'), but didn't address one of the concerns of how such a disease could spread...cows eating cows. Now we're seeing the results with homegrown cases popping up in the Northwest US.

Frankly, IMO, after reading what I have, the cattle and dairy industry in the US is largely f*cked (pardon my language). Feeding herbivores meat? As I've said in other topics, if you screw with mother nature, her payback is a real bitch.

[gardener]

Russ,
Have you run into this American Council on Science and Health before? All the links you posted originated with the ACSH itself. This organization, headed by Elizabeth Whelan, sounds terrific, but it’s basically a public relations lobby for many corporate interests. Whelan has a Ph. D., but so do lots of folks I wouldn’t trust to hold my billfold while I adjusted my shirt tail. Her company is a small outfit, with an exceedingly well-paid staff of five the last I heard. The only industry whose products Whelan and the ACSH don’t praise to the skies is the tobacco manufacturers(but Whelan is opposed to warning statements on cigarette packs).

I don't know whether rBST in cow's milk is harmful or not. I'm not competant to judge. But my personal decision was to go with the organic stuff. And I'm simply not going to take Monsanto's word that the hormone is harmless, nor Whelan's either. (I believed far too long the message the cigarette companies sent my way back in the 50s when I started the habit of smoking that probably was responsible for the lung cancer for which I had surgery six years ago this month.) And I don't like Monsanto's bullying of Okahurst Dairy.

If you go to this link on the ACSH’s website
http://www.acsh.org/food/
you can see a list of the press releases it has put out. This will give you a pretty good idea where it stands on a lot of commercial products.

Here’s a fairly complete list, but not very recent, of the sources of the ACSH’s funding
http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/non...nd_health.html

And here’s a very long account of the ACSH from the PR Watch site of the Center for Media and Democracy. To save trouble, I’m excerpting it below.
http://www.prwatch.org/improp/acsh.html* *

------------excerpt
ACSH calls itself "a science-based, public health group that is directed by a board of 300 leading physicians and scientists ... providing mainstream, peer reviewed scientific information to American consumers." To its credit, it has taken a strong public position against the dangers of tobacco, one of the leading preventable causes of death in today's society. However, it takes a generally apologetic stance regarding virtually every other health and environmental hazard produced by modern industry.

The American Council on Science and Health has been headed by Elizabeth Whelan since its inception. Whelan makes no bones about her political leanings, describing herself as a lifelong conservative who is "more libertarian than Republican." According to media commentator Howard Kurtz, "Television producers like Whelan because she's colorful and succinct, skewering her adversaries with such phrases as 'toxic terrorists'and referring to their research as 'voodoo statistics.' Newspaper reporters often dial her number because she is an easily accessible spokesperson for the 'other' side of many controversies."

Shortly after its founding, ACSH abandoned even the appearance of independent funding. In a 1997 interview, Whelan explained that she was already being called a "paid liar for industry," so she figured she might as well go ahead and take industry money without restrictions.
*
During its first 15 years of operation, ACSH published the names of its institutional funders, but it has stopped doing this in recent years, making it harder to identify where all of its money comes from. In the latest years for which information is available, some 40 percent of ACSH's budget was supplied directly by industry, including a long list of food, drug and chemical companies that have a vested interest in supporting Whelan's message. ACSH funders have included the following:

* ALCOA Foundation
* Allied Signals Foundation, Inc.
* American Cyanamid Company
* American Meat Institute
* Amoco Foundation, Inc.
* Anheuser-Busch Foundation
* Archer Daniels Midland Company
* Ashland Oil Foundation
* Boise Cascade Corporation
* Bristol-Myers Fund, Inc.
* Burger King Corporation
* Campbell Soup Company
* Carnation Company
* Chevron Environmental Health Center
* Ciba-Geigy Corporation
* Coca-Cola Company
* Consolidated Edison
* Cooper Industries Foundation
* Adolph Coors Foundation
* Crystal Trust
* Shelby Cullum Davis Foundation
* Dow Chemical Canada, Inc.
* Dow Corning Corporation
* E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company
* Ethyl Corporation
* Exxon Corporation
* FMC Foundation
* Ford Motor Company Fund
* Frito-Lay
* General Electric Foundation
* General Mills, Inc.
* General Motors Foundation
* Gerber Products Company
* Rollin M. Gerstacker Foundation
* Hershey Foods Corporation Fund
* Heublein, Inc.
* ICI Americas Inc.
* Johnson & Johnson
* Johnson's Wax Fund, Inc.
* Kellogg Company
* Ester A. and Joseph Klingenstein Fund, Inc.
* David H. Koch Charitable Foundation
* Kraft Foundation
* Kraft General Foods
* Licensed Beverage Information Council
* Thomas J. Lipton Foundation, Inc.
* M&M Mars
* Merck Company Foundation
* Mobil Foundation, Inc.
* Monsanto Fund
* National Agricultural Chemicals Association
* National Dairy Council
* National Soft Drink Association
* National Starch and Chemical Foundation
* Nestlé
* Samuel Roberts Nobel Foundation, Inc.
* Northwood Institute
* NutraSweet Company
* John M. Olin Foundation Inc.
* Oscar Mayer Foods
* Pepsico Foundation Inc. (Pepsi-Cola)
* Pfizer Inc.
* Pillsbury Company
* PPG Industries Foundation
* Procter & Gamble Fund
* Ralston Purina
* Rohm & Haas Company
* Salt Institute
* Sarah Scaife Foundation, Inc.
* Schultz Foundation
* G.D. Searle Charitable Trust
* Joseph E. Seagrams & Sons, Inc.
* Shell Oil Company Foundation
* Stare Fund
* Starr Foundation
* Sterling Drug, Inc.
* Stouffer Company
* Stroh Brewery Company
* Sugar Association, Inc.
* Sun Company, Inc.
* Syntex Corporation
* Union Carbide Corporation
* Uniroyal Chemical Co.
* USX Corp.
* Warner-Lambert Foundation
* Wine Growers of California

According to ACSH, some of its funding from the food industry dried up after those companies were acquired by Philip Morris, which does not like the position that ACSH has taken against tobacco.
/////

[russ]

Russ, all of the articles you referenced have to do with organic produce and not dairy or meat products. One of the articles even referenced states that plants do not have digestive systems and do not handle nutirents and other ingestibles in the same way. I don't think they are specifically relevant to what the Professor is bringing up in this post.

Point well taken.

Have you run into this American Council on Science and Health before?

Yes. I occasionally read their articles.

During its first 15 years of operation, ACSH published the names of its institutional funders, but it has stopped doing this in recent years, making it harder to identify where all of its money comes from. In the latest years for which information is available, some 40 percent of ACSH's budget was supplied directly by industry, including a long list of food, drug and chemical companies that have a vested interest in supporting Whelan's message.

Point well taken again. Their funding does suggest an important source of bias.
However, that doesn't necessarily mean that what they're saying is inaccurate, but one does need to question their motives.
I wonder if the corprorate donors support the site because of the viewpoints expressed, or if the viewpoints are expressed because of the corporate donors. Sort of a chicken versus the egg issue.

[Kaiser]

Russ,

Looking at the website, I had the same skepticism as the professor, but didn't have time to do the requisite research before he did. Obviously the scientific community is replete with people who work for or with the corporate community. If not, much of their sources of funding would be gone and a lot of good research leading to good results would probably never have occured. However, as I often argue with my father, just because something is done scientifically, it doesn't make it in the best interest of health or welfare.

Going on somewhat of a tangent, I used to have a long standing debate with my friends regarding the culpability of big business in creating or fostering many of the problems in today's world. I stated that it would not be in their best interest to do anything damaging or bad because a) the public would find out, b) they wouldn't let it happen because they would inform the media, word would get out and sales would be shot, and c) there would be lawsuits and culpability. In the ten years since we had that discussion, my view has definitely changed. Large multinationals, IMO often have a huge monetary incentive to break the law...often have the local government on their side (even in the US, more and more, it seems), exert undue influence on the local media (even in the US, it is seeming), and the payoffs are so big versus the small chance of large loss that current corporate leaders will have long cashed out their stock options if and when culpability causes stock prices to crash. Anyway, I know that's not true for all companies, but since more and more use PR firms and scientific consultants to push their view, against what they deem to be 'radical consumer' groups, I get more and more leery of what they are trying to push. The consumers are supposed to be their customers - the source of their revenue - not the enemy. If there was no truth to the rumors, they would die or be quashed in court (even if there was truth, as the U.K. McDonald's case has shown, it might still be quashed). So, one wonders, why exactly are they so vigilantly fighting those supposed consumers?

[russ]

Looking at the website, I had the same skepticism as the professor, but didn't have time to do the requisite research before he did. Obviously the scientific community is replete with people who work for or with the corporate community. If not, much of their sources of funding would be gone and a lot of good research leading to good results would probably never have occured. However, as I often argue with my father, just because something is done scientifically, it doesn't make it in the best interest of health or welfare.

I agree with these points. Regarding ACSH, a line has been drawn in the sand and it's fairly clear which side they're on. At the same time, one may find it quite difficult to refute plenty of their arguments. I say this because I'm quite sure that they choose their positions carefully. It would look quite silly if they release a position statement, only to have it pointed out that they have overlooked large chunks of evidence.

Going on somewhat of a tangent, I used to have a long standing debate with my friends regarding the culpability of big business in creating or fostering many of the problems in today's world. I stated that it would not be in their best interest to do anything damaging or bad because a) the public would find out, b) they wouldn't let it happen because they would inform the media, word would get out and sales would be shot, and c) there would be lawsuits and culpability. In the ten years since we had that discussion, my view has definitely changed. Large multinationals, IMO often have a huge monetary incentive to break the law...often have the local government on their side (even in the US, more and more, it seems), exert undue influence on the local media (even in the US, it is seeming), and the payoffs are so big versus the small chance of large loss that current corporate leaders will have long cashed out their stock options if and when culpability causes stock prices to crash. Anyway, I know that's not true for all companies, but since more and more use PR firms and scientific consultants to push their view, against what they deem to be 'radical consumer' groups, I get more and more leery of what they are trying to push. The consumers are supposed to be their customers - the source of their revenue - not the enemy. If there was no truth to the rumors, they would die or be quashed in court (even if there was truth, as the U.K. McDonald's case has shown, it might still be quashed). So, one wonders, why exactly are they so vigilantly fighting those supposed consumers?

Interesting comments. I'd be lying if I said that I have a clear answer to the question, though.

[Kaiser]

Oops. sorry, that last section was general rantings adressed to anyone who would read them, not specifically to you Russ. The first paragraph was more adressed to the topic at hand.

My HS English teacher would have my head right about now.

[russ]

Oops. sorry, that last section was general rantings adressed to anyone who would read them, not specifically to you Russ. The first paragraph was more adressed to the topic at hand.

They're interesting thoughts nonetheless

[russ]

Given that CSPI and ACSH have been mentioned on several posts in this section, and CSPI clearly takes issue (to some degree, anyhow) with the corporate funding which ACSH receives (or received), it might be interesting to read this recent response by ACSH to CPSI:

http://www.healthfactsandfears.com/f...spi102003.html

This article touches on some of the issues suggested by K in one of his posts in this thread ( corporate funding can bias a researcher, but can also result in important discoveries).

My impression is that CSPI has its own axes to grind and I'm not convinced that they're any less biased than ACSH may be.