It started out as a joke. Whenever Sharon and I were in the States after closing time up here, we’d visit a U.S. grocery store for a few supplies, and I’d always check the big milk containers to see which brands contained rBST.
In case you don't know, rBST is recombinant bovine somatotropin, a growth hormone administed to cows to force them to produce more milk. The practice was developed by Monsanto with its Posilac rBST brand, and it works quite well at increasing milk production and farm profits. It also happens to make the cows sick.
Cows treated with rBST develop mastitis, a swelling of the udder that produces pus, which, of course, gets into the milk supply. This is not a particularly appealing prospect, especially when one is picturing this as one reads the labels on the milk jugs on the shelf.
Unfortunately, traces of the hormones remain in the milk and are transferred to us. Not only that, rBST milk is not quite like regular milk, and this complicates things a bit. Like the fact that Monsanto milk contains a whole lot more natural growth factor (called IGF-1) which is easily absorbed by the human gut. And research has shown that high levels of IGF-1 are implicated in a rise in breast, colon and prostate cancers. Not only that, but high levels of IGF-1 block our natural defenses against early stage microscopic cancers.
And if that were not bad enough, the same cows treated with Prosilac are almost always treated with antibiotics to suppress infections like mastitis, and those antibiotics are transferred to us in the milk.
I can see that you're starting to rethink the idea of buying cheaper milk in the U.S. Me too. Breast feeding women, I’ve read, should be particularly cautious. Personally, I’d speculate that a mother drinking a tall glass of Monsanto milk is a higher risk to her newborn than if she drinks a glass of wine. Then again, I’m no research clinician.
Of course, some modern science seems to contradict that caution. I just read that the Chinese are modifying cow’s milk to produce human breast milk. “It’s good,” said worker Jiang Yao. “It’s better for you because it’s genetically modified,” in a quote from a piece on the Natural Society website.
The article goes on to say: “Chinese scientists have genetically modified dairy cows to produce human breast milk, and hope to be selling it in supermarkets within three years. The milk produced by the transgenic cows is identical to the human variety, with the same immune-boosting and antibacterial qualities as breast milk, scientists at China’s Agricultural University in Beijing said.
“The transgenic herd of 300 was bred by inserting human genes into cloned cow embryos which were then implanted into surrogate cows. The technology used was similar to that used to produce Dolly the sheep, the first mammal to be cloned by scientists, in Scotland.
“The milk is still undergoing safety tests, but with government permission it will be sold to consumers as a more nutritious dairy drink than cow’s milk.”
Well, that's reassuring. But here’s the thin edge of the ethical wedge in a Chinese scientist's own words: “There are 1.5 billion people in the world who don’t get enough to eat,” he said. “It’s our duty to develop science and technology, not to hold it back. We need to feed people first, before we consider ideals and convictions.”
I don't know what I could possibly add that you're not already thinking.
Ironically, correspondent Michael McCarthy reported in The Independent back in 1999 that Monsanto had removed genetically modified foods from one of its cafeterias in England, thanks to an enterprising catering supply firm. But it turned out it was just a tiny exception to the Monsanto rule of making GM food available to all, whether we like it or not.
Which is happening to our field crops whether we like it or not. Genetically modified Monsanto seed has now contaminated seed stocks across North America, from alfalfa and canola to beets. According to research in Poland, it is also happening to honeybees that have been fed GM corn syrup. Apparently, the syrup has altered the bees’ DNA and threatened their survival. Fortunately, to rectify the situation, Monsanto bought out the bee research firm, so problem solved.
Closer to home, potatoes are the next targets for genetic modification. I can’t wait to see how that works out for New Brunswick.
Meanwhile I'd suggest that real men, especially senior bankers, agribusiness and pharmaceuticals CEOs drink far more Monsanto milk and eat more GM food. In fact they should encourage their wives and children to do the same. While they’re at it, these same real men should start signing their kids up for the military so they can learn to use those great weapons produced here in North America on those unsuspecting foreigners who think we shouldn't have access to their natural resources.
In fact, if we can get all the real men to get all their kids to go to war, our kids wouldn’t have to. Hard as that might be for you and me, I think it's a sacrifice we’d be willing to make.
It seems that here in the States, the FDA requires manufacturers to include the following label on milk that doesn't contain additives:
ReplyDelete"No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from cows treated with artificial hormones and those not treated with artificial hormones."
Even organic, non-modified food has to carry a government label negating its own advantages and in effect advertising for those who DO modify their product. I find that remarkable.
I share some concern, but I'm also aware of the very long history of fear and trembling and tales of conspiracy surrounding virtually every technological "advance" all of which are richly larded with "studies" and other data which far more often than not weren't really studies and often never actually occurred. Few people really read the studies we are told were made, we just accept the story out of traditional liberal distaste for big business and big science.
ReplyDeleteI recently did some "tests" of my own in response to someone's assertion that gluten was a poison that was supposedly backed up by "studies on Egyptian mummies" that were nothing by speculation by someone on the Web selling diet books with no background in or knowledge of Egyptology (nor possessed of a sense of ethics either)
Can bees have their DNA modified by what they eat? That would be remarkable at the very least and for some reason that reminds me of the "Studies" I read about back in the 1960's that told us that LSD "changed our DNA" which of course wasn't exactly - or even approximately - true.
We are bombarded by a constant flow of things issued by people and entities that profit immensely from scaring us and much of it is in the area of health, nutrition and related subjects -- and it's to the extent that real science is hidden behind a smokescreen of nonsense about "processed" foods, mysterious "toxins" cooked foods, fertilizers, preservatives, and pesticides; about the perils of arsenic in apple juice, mysterious "frequencies" that give us brain cancer and why the fructose in corn is deadly but not in strawberries.
Is gluten really making us smaller and shorter lived than our paleolithic ancestors who were lucky to live to 30? Do Eskimos really have umpteen words for snow? Nope, it just gets passed from mouth to ear in an endless cascade. Where are the randomized, double blind large scale studies? Is wheat really responsible for diabetes and tooth decay? Well that "study" was based on conjecture about ONE fat mummy out of thousands and thousands and the false assertion that workers did not eat wheat but only the aristocracy. Sorry, it's not true and it's not science but someone's getting rich from it. Proto-humans died with tooth decay.
Most of such theories depend heavily on the notion that Science and evil scientists are hiding things from us and while that's possible, I think it runs far afoul of Brother Occam if not Bayes' Theorem and while Capitalism and Corruption both start with the letter C, I don't think the dire predictions are manifesting themselves to nearly any degree that looks real.
Are hormones in milk really affecting us? Are there thousands or even millions of victims out there? Why can't those victims be identified and quantified? Do bovine growth factors, like garlic, survive the digestion process and if so, how much? That's not a question for journalists and I'd rather rely on an article in Nature or Cell than on Newsweek. But that's just me.
The only thing that's going to tell the story is real research and real research doesn't appear in popular media. I suspect that as the label asserts, there really isn't any discernible evidence that it does, although of course I could be wrong. I don't think I'm wrong that North Americans and Europeans are living longer than ever and suffering from fewer things not related to eating too damn much.
I have no doubt that agribusiness fudges figures and stifles criticism, just the way most industries do, but that doesn't mean that the spliced genes in corn are going to change you into some horrible chimera any more than the otherwise modified genes in corn and cows, navel oranges and seedless watermelons will.