As a local foodie, small producer and farmer’s market vendor, I found myself in an odd position in my last post; defending Monsanto. Although I think Monsanto has a less-than-great track record in the PR department, as a scientist, it was relatively easy to post on the facts. As I cruised the internet looking for blogs, articles and op-ed pieces on rBST, most of what I read about why we should oppose the use of rBST was scientifically unfounded and sometimes completely at odds with reality. There are some legitimate concerns about the use of the product, and (believe it or not), there are also some legitimate reasons to support its continued availability.

So, here’s some issues to think about:

Is it ethical to remove from the marketplace a product that is scientifically safe, but has significant public opposition, if its removal raises the prices of a basic foodstuff? Remember that those most adversely affected are likely to be the least vocal and least politically represented. If rBST is withdrawn from the market place, will it also have a corresponding increase in milk prices?

Who bears the cost when farmers use lower efficiency production methods in favor of other factors such as sustainability, animal welfare, or organic? Dairy farmers use rBST because it lowers their cost of production per gallon of milk. I suspect that the first “rBST-free” brands may have paid a premium to farmers for foregoing the use of the product. But, as major processors became “rBST-free”, they simply imposed a restriction on the product’s use without any change in compensation to the producer.

What is the meaning behind the “rBST-free labels“? Last time I researched it, many claims such as “our milk is produced from cows not treated with rBST” had minimal checks to make sure the producers were not using the product. Milk bearing the label is very likely produced on large-scale dairy farms, and no more likely to be organic, pastured, or local than non-labelled milk. And finally, it has been shown to have no less “hormones” than non-labelled milk.

Optimal versus maximal production: Whether it be through the administration of rBST or traditional selection for extreme milk production, there is no doubt that the extra production comes as some costs. Productive life of dairy cattle (the length of time they remain in the milking herd before they become salvage beef) has decreased dramatically as pounds of milk produced per cow have increased. rBST increases production, as does selective breeding. What is optimum? Is it the same as maximum?

So, before you make your purchasing decision based on that “rBST-free” label, or demand that Monsanto pull the product from the market, make sure that your reasons are sound and you are getting what you pay for.

1. Steve Says:
   August 15th, 2008 at 10:03pm

   rBST-Created by combining cow DNA with E coli

   Here is the deal I and all Americans who find out that the FDA has been and continues to force the population to be human lab rats get pissed off!

   While the AMA forces only profitable procedures to prevail and goes to the expent to publish false information to discredit inexpensive cures…

   Now you say that this genitically altered substance is save for the manufacturers study on rats show no issues. Oh my god! We have no idea of the long term or generational efects of this.
   We ase messing with the building blocks of life itself with no clue of the reprocussions. The government is allowing this and promoting by not labeling GMs.

   I do not want to eat any product which has beed or eaten or injected anything genitically altered.

   By the way - Where did the HIV virus come from? Do you believe the goverments story of monkeys.

   When I say government I really mean the for profit large corperations which are the pupet masters of the government.



2. Sara Says:
   August 16th, 2008 at 9:42pm

   Thanks for your comments. Many people share the smaefears.
   But, in fact. rBST is the exact same hormone that causes cows to lactate in the first place, and has been thoroughly studied in peer-reviewed articles. I’m a skeptic myself, and have looked for scientifically proven data against it, but it is scarce and not very well documented.

   Safety is not the problem with milk for rBST treated cow. Marketers and special interest groups who pray on and multiply public fear, uncertainty and distaste is.

   We started this blog exactly because issues such as this are so personal and emotional and very few people really understand how their food is produced, how it is marketed to them and what is and is not safe.”



3. Jennifer Says:
   August 20th, 2008 at 3:58pm

   What I am amazed by is the sentiment to jump on anti-corporate bandwagons and amp up the demonization of big business like Monsanto yet people don’t look at the big business of organics with the same skepticism? My problem with organics is that it is built on the marketing base of demonizing any production method outside of it’s own.

   The first poster shows an amazing lack of understanding about what rBST is by claiming it’s a combination of cow DNA and E Coli. Having a science background I am apalled by how out of context that statement is. not to mention that assertion that the public is being used as “lab rats” totally disregards all of the work that was done testing that product.

   I have worked for a government regulatory agency and I assure you from first hand experience there is no bureaucracy that just rubber stamps approvals. Approval for new products are VERY slow and painful for the developers of those products.

   There are a lot of naturally ocurring compounds which are sythesized “artifically” for market use. A biochemically identical molecule is a biochemically identical molecule.

   We don’t think twice about other substances which are synthesized which are used every day in our lives. If you’ve taken any kind of pharmaceutical you’ve taken something which was synthesized, yet people get all up in arms about the specific application of synthesized substances to food production. It totally defies logic.

   I am disgusted by people who take advantage of ignorance and the anti-rBST push is definitely based on preying on a lack of understanding in the general public about biology and science.

   Cornell University has a pretty good BST fact sheet if anyone is interested in getting more factual information and not more out of context misinformation.



4. Sara Says:
   August 26th, 2008 at 9:18am

   Jennifer: Thanks for taking the time to comment and defend science.

   One of the things that wears on me, too, is how the issues are clouded by one side or the other playing on fears and emotions. I believe in choice, but it should be based on truth.