|
 |
Got Milk?
I have long ceased to be amazed by the onslaught of organic foods. We live in a time of 100% natural processed cheese food--it has become easy to turn a blind eye to most claims. However, what if some foods that we have long thought of as unadulterated and natural began to change unnoticed? A disturbing number of genetically engineered fruits, vegetables, and animal products are finding their way into our market, more often than not unlabeled as such. At present, perhaps the most controversial of these genetically engineered products is milk and the use of rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone) in cows by the dairy industry. While rBGH is banned in Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and the European Union, and has not been approved for commercial use in Canada, the United States dairy industry has begun using the hormone en masse. The hormone, marketed under the name Posilac and produced by Monsanto, increases milk production in dairy cows by 10-15% in a country already producing a surplus of milk. And while it has been linked to cancer and anti-biotic resistance in humans, rBGH treated milk and milk products are not labeled as such in the supermarket, nor are rBGH--free products allowed labeling freedom in all states, taking away from consumers the right to an informed choice. Speculation regarding rBGH and cancer began over IGF-1 (insulin like growth factor 1). IGF-1 is a naturally occurring enzyme in both humans and bovine. Fluctuations in the natural levels of enzymes have been linked to rapid cell division and the formations of cancerous tumors. The level of IGF-1 is 2-10 times higher in rBGH treated cows, and the pasteurization process increases rather than decreases these levels. While it is a protein enzyme and not active when taken orally there is some evidence that IGF-1 is not broken down in digestion, and from there it has the potential to enter the bloodstream of humans. Not only is rBGH potentially dangerous to humans, it also poses a risk to cows. While receiving the growth hormone, cows are more susceptible to a number of side effects including a shortened life span and an increased risk of Mastitis, or an infection of the udder. In fact, cows receiving rBGH have shown a 79% increase in Mastitis. Mastitis directly affects the quality and safety of the milk because extensive antibiotic treatments are necessary to control the infection. Although Federal and State quality assurance programs are set up to ensure the safety of milk by testing for antibodies, there is speculation as to the effectiveness of these measures in preventing the contamination of the milk supply by antibodies. Also, milk from treated cows is very likely to contain pus from infected udders, a shortened shelf life, an increase in fat content, and a decrease in protein content. rBGH works by extending the lactating period of cows by about eight weeks. It is administered by injection as the cow's natural lactating period is starting to decline. By altering the hormone levels in the bloodstream it forces the cows to lactate for a longer period of time, resulting in a 10-15% increase in milk production. This surplus, along with the surplus of milk our country was already producing, is bought back from farmers by the American government with the taxpayers money. While the decision to use rBGH is ultimately up to the farmer, he or she is unable (in many states) to inform consumers as to whether or not their milk and milk products are growth hormone free. Although Monsanto states that "Consumers need answers about genetically engineered food so they can make their own decisions about their use", in 1994 the company sued two small milk processors who labeled their product as rBGH free. The FDA official responsible for labeling policy is a former partner in the law firm that brought these lawsuits on behalf of Monsanto. While Monsanto states that "The USDA, FDA, EPA, and most state governments closely monitor the development and testing of genetically engineered products. in the end, only consumers themselves can decide if using a product is right for them", the FDA stated that allowing anyone outside the administration to review the data of a 90 day study of rBGH would "irreparably harm" Monsanto. A future of a completely genetically modified food chain is a very real possibility. We already have the technology, now it's up to consumers to accept the products. By sliding genetically modified foods into the market unnoticed and without labeling, many companies are hoping to force public acceptance passively. Engineers of genetically modified food claim that this is the answer to feeding the hungry around the world. Of course, our country alone produces enough food to feed every single person on the planet: quantity is not the problem. The real truth is that by altering the natural balance of the food chain, we are posing some serious risks not only to the planet but also to our bodies--a pretty high cost. What, exactly, are we buying? --Michelle Vernier |
 |
|