A federal court decision contradicts the FDA about genetically modified food
Designer Label
When someone is clearly in the wrong, it’s always amusing to hear their explanation for why they’re in the right.
Take Monsanto…
Monsanto is the agri-business giant (some would say “evil” giant) that developed Posilac, a genetically modified (GM) bovine growth hormone, also known as rBST and rBGH.
Eli Lilly acquired Posilac in 2008, but Monsanto executives seem to still have feelings for their old brand, because they’ve posted a defense of Posilac on their website.
Those who don’t worry about uncomfortable topics like GM can read the Monsanto statement and cuddle up to the warm’n’cozy corporate reassurance.
Monsanto calls Posilac “a supplement of the naturally occurring cow hormone BST.” When administered to cows, it “allows them to produce more milk.”
See? It’s all about perspective. This growth hormone is actually a “supplement” and it’s “naturally occurring.” And you know cows–they’re practically begging to produce more milk. Posilac “allows” them to do that.
The Monsanto statement continues: “The milk from treated cows is identical to milk produced by cows that are not treated.” And: “Milk from treated cows is just as safe as milk from untreated cows.”
And in case you don’t quite believe that, they add: “This has been affirmed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, World Health Organization, American Medical Association, American Dietetic Association and regulatory agencies in 30 countries.”
That’s hard to refute.
And yet, it’s been refuted–big time. Signed, sealed, delivered.
Sorry, Monsanto
This month, a federal court said that Ohio cannot ban dairy producers from putting a label on their products to inform consumers that no growth hormone has been used.
That’s good for Ohio consumers. But even better is the reasoning behind the court’s decision, which just happens to refute the FDA claim of “no significant difference” between milk from cows that have been “supplemented” with growth hormone, and those that have not been “allowed” the pleasure.
According to the court, there is “compositional difference” in three ways: 1) Increased somatic cell counts (which means there’s more pus in the milk), 2) During each lactation, there’s a period when the milk has lower nutritional quality, and 3) The milk contains increased levels of the hormone IGF-1.
Ring a bell?
As I mentioned a few weeks ago, IGF-1 consumption has been linked to colon, breast, and prostate cancers. That’s one of the reasons why Japan, Australia, Canada, and every country in the European Union banned the use of rBST.
So this Ohio court decision is HUGE, because it affects the whole question of how dairy products can be labeled.
The FDA actually does allow dairy producers to label their products as “not from cows treated with rBST.” But that claim also has to include this statement: “No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBST- treated and non-rBST-treated cows.”
So now that the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has pointed out the very clear and significant differences between rBST and non-rBST milk, will dairy producers be able to tell consumers the truth?
Don’t bet on it. Especially if Monsanto has anything to say about it. And they will. This company doesn’t exactly have a reputation for standing aside and letting the chips fall where they may.
Meanwhile, you can easily avoid foods from animals treated with growth hormones. Just choose organic. No other disclaimer about growth hormones is necessary.
You can also visit an online shopping guide that lists a wide range of products that are free of genetically modified organisms. The website is called Non-GMO Shopping Guide (nongmoshoppingguide.com). In addition to general food products, the site also lists resources for baby food, pet products, and body care products.
To Your Good Health,
Jenny Thompson
Sources:
“Court OKs Hormone-Free Label on Dairy Products in Ohio” April Fulton, NPR, 10/1/10, npr.org
“Milk Labeling–Is Monsanto Opposed to Truth in Labeling?” Monsanto.com
