Bovine somatotropin
Controversy over its safety has led to it being banned in several countries, including the European Union since 1990, and Canada, Japan, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, and Argentina, as it has been found to increase health risks in cows.
[citation needed] Four large pharmaceutical companies, Monsanto, American Cyanamid, Eli Lilly, and Upjohn, developed commercial rBST products and submitted them to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval.
An EU report on the animal welfare effects of rBST states that its use often results in "severe and unnecessary pain, suffering and distress" for cows, and is "associated with serious mastitis, foot disorders and some reproductive problems".
[16] In 1937, the administration of BST was shown to increase the milk yield in lactating cows by preventing mammary cell death in dairy cattle.
[20][21][22] Lilly, American Cyanamid, Upjohn, and Monsanto all submitted applications to market rBST to the FDA, and the FDA completed its review of the human safety component of these applications in 1986 and found food from rBST-treated cows to be safe; however, strong public concern led to calls for more studies, investigations, and public discussions, which included an unprecedented conference on the safety of rBST in 1990 organized by the National Institutes of Health at the request of Senator Patrick Leahy.
The effects are mediated by the insulin-like growth factor (IGF) system, which is upregulated in response to BST or rBST administration in well-fed cows.
[citation needed] The mechanism through which the hormones of this somatotropin exert their effects can be observed at the cellular and molecular level in placental tissue.
Knowledge of this and how BST works in conjunction with growth hormones allows for agricultural researchers to experiment on the effects of synchronization in farm animals.
The same study reported a decrease in body condition score for cows treated with rBST, though an increase in their dry matter intake occurred.
[citation needed] A more recent meta-analysis (2014) published by the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association showed no significant increase in risk of clinical mastitis nor other adverse effects on cow health and well-being.
The milk may have a slight change in fat content within the first few weeks of rBST treatment as the cow is allowed to adjust her metabolism and feed intake.
Natural variation within milk is normal with or without rBST treatment in cows due to genetics, location, feed, age, and other environmental factors.
The American Cancer Society issued a report declaring, "The evidence for potential harm to humans [from rBGH milk] is inconclusive.
In addition, no current evidence shows that orally consumed IGF-1 is absorbed in humans and the dietary amount is negligible when compared to what the body produces on its own.
At this time, it is not clear that drinking milk, produced with or without rBST treatment, increases blood IGF-1 levels into a range that might be of concern regarding cancer risk or other health effects.
Furthermore, chronic supplementation of cows with rBST does not increase concentrations of milk IGF-1 outside the range typically observed for effects of farm, parity, or stage of lactation.
Cady's study showed that excretion of nitrogen and phosphorus, two major environmental pollutants arising from animal agriculture, was reduced by 9.1 and 11.8%, respectively.
[52] Carbon dioxide is recognized to be the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas,[53] and livestock metabolism and fossil fuel consumption are the main sources of emissions from animal agriculture.
[54]: 20–21 In 1997, the news division of WTVT (Channel 13), a Fox-owned station in Tampa, Florida, planned to air an investigative report by Steve Wilson and Jane Akre on the health risks associated with Monsanto's bovine growth hormone product, Posilac.
In 2000, a Florida jury found that while no evidence showed Fox/WTVT had bowed to any pressure from Monsanto to alter the story, Akre, but not Wilson, was a whistleblower and was unjustly fired.
[8][9][62] In Canada, bulk milk products from the United States that have been produced with rBST are still allowed to be sold and used in food manufacture (cheese, yogurt, etc.)
"[65] The Codex Alimentarius Commission, a United Nations body that sets international food standards, has, as of 2017, refused to approve rBST as safe.
One such example, tested by W.W. Thatcher at the University of Florida,[68] involves collecting milk samples from the cows and analyzing them directly for the presence of the rBST antibody.
Tests involving pasteurized milk samples have even shown consistent results, with immunoglobulin rBST still detectable and distinguishable despite other antibodies remaining present.
[14] In 1990, an independent panel convened by the National Institute of Health supported the FDA opinion that milk and meat from cows supplemented with rBST is safe for human consumption.
The suit was settled when the dairy agreed to add a qualifying statement to its label: "FDA states: No significant difference in milk from cows treated with artificial growth hormones."
[citation needed] In 2008, Ohio's Department of Agriculture (ODA) banned the use of labeling in dairy products as rBST-free because it was deemed misleading to consumers.
"The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Ohio, concluding that using 'rBST' as a label was inherently misleading because it implies a compositional difference between those products that are produced with rBST and those that are not.
[citation needed] In reaction to these trends, in early 2008, a pro-rBST advocacy group called American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology (AFACT),[78] made up of dairies and originally affiliated with Monsanto, formed and began lobbying to ban such labels.
[79] The International Dairy Foods Association has compiled a list, last updated in 2009, of state regulations in the U.S. for referencing use of growth hormones on milk labels.
