The Use of Bovine Growth Hormone
Since 1994, dairy cows have been treated with a hormone called (BST) Bovine Somatotropin, also known as (rBGH) Bovine Growth Hormone (Kingsnorth, par. 1, par. 3). Bovine growth hormone is a naturally occurring hormone of cattle that regulates growth and milk production (Kingsnorth, par. 1). In the United States, rBGH is the most widely used biotechnology (Ehrenfeld, par.3). To produce this hormone, slightly modified cow genes are placed into fermentation tanks containing bacteria, and then injected into lactating cows to help them produce more milk (Ehrenfeld, par. 12). Kingsnorth explains, “It works by altering gene expression of glucose transporters in the cow’s mammary gland, skeletal muscle, and omental fat. The gene facilitates the repartitioning of glucose to the mammary gland, which in turn produces more milk.” (par. 1). Shirley’s-wellness café says, “The congressional General Accounting Office has warned of the potential human health hazards from the consumption of milk or flesh (about 40% of the beef used to make hamburgers come from “old” dairy cows) derived from BGH-treated cows.” (par. 4). As with anything that is genetically altered there are side effects. Although the intentions were good when it was decided to start using the bovine growth hormone, this hormone not only affects the cows, but also the humans who consume it.
In 1993 when the United States Government approved the hormone, the approval came after studies of rats fed rBGH did not show any toxicological changes (Teitel, Wilson, par. 47). The 1998 Canadian Gaps Report stated that, in fact, a larger proportion of the rBGH-fed rats, between twenty and thirty percent, did show clearly defined changes in the immune system. Some of the male rats even showed the development of cysts of the thyroid and incursion of the prostate (Teitel, Wilson, par. 48). These are warning signs for possible problems with the immune systems and fatal affects as well (Teitel, Wilson, par. 48). Duff states, “Testing shows pasteurization does not destroy the genetically engineered bovine hormones, not even at temperatures beyond the established pasteurization process.” (par. 9). In a study that was conducted, the milk was heated for thirty minutes at seventy-one degrees Celsius, and the hormone survived (Duff, par. 9). Normally during the pasteurization process, this temperature is maintained for only fifteen seconds (Duff, par. 9). Although we have plenty of milk, producers are still seeking ways to increase milk production (Duff, par. 7). Injecting dairy cows with the bovine growth hormone has the capability of boosting the production milk by only fifteen per cent (Duff, par. 7). But, according to Paul Kingsnorth, since the 1950s, America’s dairy farms have continually produced more milk than the nation can drink (par. 3). Since we have an abundance of milk, is it really worth the dangers?
To give animals something when you know it is going to make them ill is inhumane. Monsanto is the manufacturer of Bovine Growth Hormone, and Monsanto lists on the package the side effects of rBGH on cows. The possible side effects, according to Ehrenfeld, are as follows: “bloat, diarrhoea, diseases of the knees and feet, feeding disorders, fevers, reduced blood hemoglobin levels, cystic ovaries, uterine pathology, reduced pregnancy rates, and smaller calves.” (par. 14). Posilac (rBGH) also causes abnormal milk, feeding disorders, and mastitis (inflammation of the udders) (Ehrenfeld, par. 14). The cows that develop mastistis produce milk that has pus in it (Kingsnorth, par. 6). The only good news that comes from this is that dairies will not accept milk that has an abnormally high proportion of pus (Kingsnorth, par. 6). The cows that are fed the Bovine Growth Hormone need more protein, therefore are fed ground up animals. Feeding cows this ground up meat can lead to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease (Ehrenfeld, par. 14). In 1994, the United States National Farmers Union (NFU) formed an rBGH telephone hotline because they had concerns about the effects of the hormone on cows (Kingsnorth, par. 7). Many farmers had to take advantage of the hotline because of the adverse effects of Posilac had on their cows (Kingsnorth, par. 7).
The effect this hormone has on humans is just as dangerous. Americans drink more milk than citizens of any other country in the world, but have the highest occurrences of bone diseases (Duff, par. 5). These adverse harmful effects include breast cancer, colon cancer, Osteosarcome (a bone tumor in children), lung cancer, growth of new blood vessels, and insulin-like growth factor (Teitel, Wilson, par. 46). The residues of antibiotics in milk contribute significantly to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in people (Weil 114). So, what does that mean? It means, when we get sick, the antibiotic we depend on so much to cure us will quit working. Pam Duff states, “The human AIDS virus closely resembles that of a bovine immunodeficiency virus; yet the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) refuses to inspect suspected meat and milk to see if retrovirus antibodies are present, nor do they have any plans to quarantine such animals.” (par.12). In addition, sixty percent of the dairy herd in the United States carries the leukemia virus (Duff, par. 12). This being the case, something should be done to save these cows and our own human race. So, why is this product still on the market?
According to David Ehrenfeld, “The whole point of genetic engineering is to increase the sales of chemicals and bio-engineered products to dependent farmers.” (par. 3). Paul Kingsnorth states, Monsanto’s estimated income is $300 to $500 million dollars a year (par. 3). In thinking about that it seems money is more important than the health of the cows and people because this hormone seems to cause more harm than good. It has been eleven years and there does not seem to be a valid reason to keep using this hormone. So, why are the dairy farmers still using it?
Kingsnorth says, “Monsanto’s response to those who dare to criticize rBGH has been the usual intimidation, lawsuits, manipulation of facts, and expensive propaganda.” (par. 17). In 1994, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stressed to retailers not to put labels on milk that was free of the Bovine Growth Hormone, thus effectively taking away consumers right to choose what they drink (Kingsnorth, par. 21). The FDA’s main reason for this is that, in their words, “There is no difference between rBGH-treated milk and ordinary milk.” Labeling, therefore, would unfairly discriminate against companies like Monsanto (Kingsnorth, par. 21). Monsanto filed two lawsuits against milk processors who labeled their milk and posted warning to others not to put labels on their products (Kingsnorth, par. 23). Faced with growing consumer outrage with their strategies, Monsanto has reluctantly decided to abandon any litigation they had against retailers, and labeling milk BGH free is now permitted here in the United States. But in spite of all the findings, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) still refuses to require producers to put labels on their milk and, still today, many people do not know what is in the milk they drink (Kingsnorth, par. 25). Currently, there are estimates that fifteen to thirty percent of the milk supply of the U.S. comes from rBGH-injected cows (Teitel, Wilson, par. 51).
In December 1998, more than twenty-five organizations, including the center for food safety, petitioned for a reversal of the Food and Drug Administration’s consent to use rBGH: “We’re going to go to the courts and say—you were lied to,” said Andrew Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety. “Essentially it was fraud by the agency and fraud by Monsanto in telling the court that there were no human health effects possible from consuming these products made with rBGH – treated milk. We now know that not to be true.” (Teitel, Wilson, par. 39).
It should be illegal to do this to animals and mankind. Many people are unaware of what they are consuming and giving to their children. There are alternatives out there, for example, organic milk, rice milk, and soymilk; but the alternatives are a bit more expensive. So, you can jeopardize your health and your family’s health by giving them milk from cows injected with Bovine Growth Hormone, stop-drinking milk, or just pay the higher price. As for my family and me, we have switched from cow’s milk to the alternatives. The substitutes are surprisingly good. We have also discontinued eating beef products. We have begun eating veggie burgers instead, and we like them very much. My husband and I decided the health of our family is too important to take any more chances.
Works Cited
- Duff, Pam RN. “Milk.” 2003. 17 May 2005. http://www.innvista.com/health/nutrition/diet/diet/milk.htm
- Ehrenfeld, David. “Agriculture Biotechnology Presents Health Risks.” 2001. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center, Gale. Panama City. GCCC Library Panama City. 14 June 2005. http://www.linccweb.org/eresources.asp
- Kingsnorth, Paul. “Bovine Growth Hormones.” Reprinted from The Ecologist 28.5 (Sept/Oct 1998). http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/john.rose/rbgh.html. 21 June 2005.
- Shirley’s Wellness Café. “Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH).” 9 June 2005. 21 June 2005. http://www.shirleys-wellness-café.com/bgh.htm
- Teitel, Martin, and Kimberly A. Wilson. “Genetically Engineered Foods Are Not Safe to Eat.” 2001. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. GCCC Library, Panama City. 14 June 2005. http://www.linccweb.org/eresources.asp
- Weil , Andrew M.D. “The Basics of Human Nutrition.” Eating Well For Optimum Health. New York: Harper/Collins, 2000. 115.
