Elanco announced recently that they have purchased worldwide operating rights and supporting operations for Posilac (rBST) from Monsanto.

From the time they announced they were divesting of Posilac, Monsanto has maintained that the decision was because they are concentrating on their plant business and less on livestock. Although I suspect that their poor track record in addressing consumer’s concerns with the product may have had something to do with it, analysis of their business activities lends creedence to it being more a business than a PR decision.

Although the green blogosphere was all over Monsanto’s decision to divest, touting it as a victory for consumer’s voices and preferences, there has been much less coverage of Elanco (whose parent company is Eli Lilly) purchasing the business. The few posts I’ve been able to locate are shamefully playing the fear card: “Maker of Prozac buys Milk Hormone“, with one discussion going so far as to imply that Lilly is going to repackage and give the product to unsuspecting women!

I consider myself green, and run my ranch using mainly non-traditional production methods,. One of my favorite blogs is Ethicurean. But, this whole process of research about rBST has me disgusted with much of what I read. I have seen so many outrageous claims about this product, and milk, meat and traditional agriculture in general, that sometimes I wonder if I can believe anything I read! Through the farmer’s markets, I get to hear many common misconceptions about traditional food. I’ve even been accused of callously contributing to global warming because I raise beef.

On the other hand, Monsanto has a really poor track record for honoring the concerns of the public and has been historically heavy handed in the way it has dealt with the public. The ag sector in general often adopts an adversarial stance relative to alternative production methods and the green movement. I’ve been accused of “damaging agriculture” by producing and selling pasture-raised beef.

Sometimes the debate seems like it’s between two toddlers. Emotion and defending a position become more important than making an informed decision about what’s best. I also get extremely frustrated that it often seems like the viewpoint is “all or none”: It takes a whole set of options to create the optimum, because there are a whole range of people, land and production scenarios. We need food and agriculture, regardless of how it’s produced. I don’t see what is inherently threatening about producing our food under a variety of methods. I do see what is threatening about fear tactics and misinformation. I also see how people feel threatened when they believe they are not getting the whole story.

It’s OK if we don’t all agree on how food should be produced. It’s great (and necessary) to debate pros, cons, risks and rewards. It doesn’t do any of us any good to have decisions influenced by fear, not facts. So, get real, all of you!

1. Bill Harshaw Says:
   August 26th, 2008 at 1:35pm

   The voice of reason is of little weight in disputes of the appetite. (Gosh, I sound pompous.) What we eat is just too deeply linked to who we are and what we are. Remember when the French didn’t support Bush on Iraq, they renamed the french fries on Capitol Hill to be “freedom fries”. IMHO



2. suzannabanana23 Says:
   August 27th, 2008 at 9:31am

   Really, the entire process is very disenheartening. The very people who should be promoting responsible technological advancements in agriculture — chefs and foodies — decry any advance and try to pull the process back to the 19th century. We are all so remote from where food comes from that we don’t understand the importance — and the safety — of the advances. What’s killed the most Americans in recent years? Not pesticides, not fertilizers, not rBST (fer chrissakes) but — HELLO — e coli from organically grown produce.

   Anyway — I had lunch recently with someone I really respect. She said “I’m detoxifying my body be eating exclusively organic foods.” I just had to bite my tongue. The misconceptions are really ingrained, very ignorant, and, in fact, dangerous to the safer and more abundant food supply necessary to feed a growing world.



3. Jennifer Says:
   August 27th, 2008 at 9:52am

   Bill has sited one of the main problems. Little of what is driving today’s “green” movement is based on reason or fact.

   I’m from CA and hell I started environmental clubs in high school but I am totally apalled by what today’s modern “envionmental” movement has morphed into.

   I completely agree with the likes of Stewart Brand and Patrick Moore that the environmental greens need to take a step back and be more pragmatic rather than the direction they are going now. What’s driving a lot of environmentalism now is misinformation and hysteria. That’s never a good combination.

   The rBST controversy has been an apalling lesson in this where the misinformation and hysteria is winning out over scientific fact. I’ve researched the subject myself quite a bit because the tactics used to demonize rBST very much parallels the tactics used to demonize the use of cloning in agriculture.

   The most keystone components to the strategy is to de-humanize the companies involved with the agricultural technology, take scientific study points out of context and then spin it all to play to the current zeitgeist of anything processed and industrial is inherently bad and anything close to nature is inherently good and more ethical. And of course the “big” guys are evil and the “little” guys are the angels.

   I am really really dismayed by the consistently bad rap that conventional ag is getting. This is why you are finding “conventional” producers so quick to be defensive Sara, they’re constantly under attack. Are there areas for improvement, yes….is conventional ag the wasteland of moral bankruptcy that the green organics would have us believe?, not in my first hand experience.

   Thanks for posting this Sara. It’s nice to see someone able to see the forest through the trees.



4. gloria Says:
   August 27th, 2008 at 10:06am

   Suzannabanana, I would argue that what has been killing most Americans is obesity from bad eating habits, shaped by the marketing machines of food companies. Those working to fight obesity promote this awareness, and one of the outcomes is a growing wholesale mistrust of industrialized food production, from lab to field to factory to supermarket. And so we have to continue debating and arguing, pulling and pushing, to get the facts out.