Biotechnology and farm animal welfare interests have clashed recently over the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) approval of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) which is used to artificially increase the milk output of dairy cattle. Though financially beneficial to giant agribusinesses and chemical companies, rBST poses great threats to the future of family farms, human health, and animal welfare.

When formally approving rBST for commercial use on November 5, 1993, the FDA declared no significant differences between the milk from treated and untreated cows. The proponents of this risky drug justify its use by arguing the BST is a naturally occurring hormone and that traces are present already in beef, milk, and other dairy products. Unfortunately, with unnaturally increased milk production due to injections of this synthetic drug comes increased hazards to human health. There is also a significant ethical difference between products from those animals who were forced to suffer rBST injections and those who were spared this added cruelty. Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, Inc., recently notified FDA Commissioner, Dr. David Kessler, that there is an increased threat of breast cancer from consumption of tainted milk. According to Epstein, the human carcinogen, insulin growth factor-1(IGF-1), is sustained in higher levels in the milk from treated cows, placing human health at higher risk.

Also, according to Dr. Michael Hansen of the Consumer Policy Institute, "Elevated levels of IGF- 1 can cause a disease called acromegaly, which involves enlargement of hands, feet, nose and chin, as well as glucose intolerance and hypertension." Clearly, the inherent threats of increased IGF-1 levels warrant prohibition of rBST's use.

Another difficulty stems from the increased incidence of mastitis, a painful infection of the cow's udder, among treated cows which leads to increased use of antibiotics. Antibiotic residues threaten humans' ability to resist disease. The FDA has concluded that the risk of clinical mastitis is "slightly higher" among treated cows; but refuses to act on this knowledge, noting other sources of infection that occur more frequently. In other words if the number of mastitis cases due to increased lactations per cow is greater than the number of mastitis cases due to rBST, the FDA considers rBST acceptable. According to this logic, the number of raindrops which will fall on my head during a storm is negligible compared to the total number falling on the city. Hence, I shouldn't bother using an umbrella.

The potential threats to human health clearly are drastic, although denied by both the government and the manufacturer. The threats to individual animal well-being are recognized and admitted, though apparently not grave enough to warrant rejecting the drug as an inappropriate "production" device.

One need look no further than the official FDA warning label for the product to see the threat to animals. According to the label, use of rBST "... has also been associated with increases in cystic ovaries and disorders of the uterus during the treatment period. Cows injected with [rBST] may have small decreases in gestation length and birth weight of calves and they may have increased twinning rates... Cows injected with [rBST] are at an increased risk for clinical mastitis (visibly abnormal milk). In addition, the risk of subclinical mastitis (milk not visibly abnormal) is increased... Use of [rBST] may result in an increase in digestive disorders such as indigestion, bloat, and diarrhea... Studies indicated that cows injected with [rBST] had increased numbers of enlarged hocks and lesions (e.g. lacerations, enlargements, calluses) of the knee (carpal region) and second lactation or older cows had more disorders of the foot region." While there is a label to warn rBST users of its possible harms, no such label is required by the FDA to warn consumers that the dairy products they purchase come from cows who may have had one or all of the above listed ailments. The FDA is considering creating "guidelines" under which farmers who do not use rBST can label their products as being free of the hormone.

What will the FDA permit on such a label? Clearly, "from cows not injected with rBST" would accurately inform consumers. The FDA, however, has stated its belief that this phrasing may be misleading since, in its estimation, there is no difference between dairy products from treated and untreated cows. Even if the human health threats from ingesting the dairy product were nonexistent, there is an obvious distinction between a healthy cow and a debilitated one. Given this distinction, the consumer is entitled to know if dairy products come from cows spared the additional horror of rBST injections and their subsequent effects. This is no different than the consumers' right to know if their tuna is dolphin-safe or their cosmetics are cruelty-free.

Already, a number of dairies have announced that they have initiated a process whereby they will not accept milk or dairy products from cows injected with rBST.

Reacting to public outcry by concerned consumers, on March 23, 1994, the Vermont legislature gave final approval to a bill requiring that "If rBST has been used in the production of milk or a milk product for retail sales in this state, the retail milk or milk product shall be labeled as such." Federal labeling legislation is being promoted by Congressmen Bernard Sanders (I, VT) and David Obey (D, WI).

Even if Congress acts to protect consumers by requiring labeling of rBST-tainted products or allowing labeling of rBST-free products, as long as the product is in use, cows and unwitting consumers are at risk. The European Union (EU) has a moratorium and Canada has proposed a moratorium on the use of rBST. These positions could pose difficulties under the restrictive North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). If either Canada or the EU rejects the importation of milk products from treated cows, the United States could challenge such prohibitions as technical barriers to free trade.

Under these trade agreements one country cannot bar importation of another country's products based on the process by which they were made. Thus, if it is ultimately proven that humans really are at no greater health risk by drinking milk from treated or untreated cows, a country may not prohibit importation of the rBST tainted dairy product -- even if thousands cows suffer to produce that milk!

We must encourage our elected officials to follow the lead of our European counterparts. With dairy products already produced at surplus levels and the risk to humans and dairy cows from rBST looming large, there is no justification for allowing the use of any drug to increase production. If rBST remains in commercial use, requiring labeling of rBST products will allow citizens to use their freedom of choice and purchasing power to force uncompassionate dairy producers and sellers to go "rBST-free"' or go out of business.

To begin this process you can urge your grocer to stock only dairy products from suppliers who have certified that their cows are not injected with rBST.

For up-to-date lists of rBST-free companies, those producers who have not yet made the decision to refuse rBST, school districts that have passed resolutions vowing only to provide students with rBST-free dairy products and other vital information concerning this important campaign, contact the Pure Campaign at 1-800-253-0681.

Reprinted with permission from the Animal Guardian, Doris Day Animal League
http://www.ddal.org