Consumer Pressure Cripples Artificial Growth Hormone Used In Milk Production
“The bottom line is this is another victory for consumers against artificial hormones in milk."
Washington, DC – Monsanto’s announcement that it is “repositioning†Posilac, its artificial growth hormone used in milk production and more commonly known as rBGH, is good news for consumers but not the end of the struggle for food safety advocates, warned the national consumer rights organization Food & Water Watch today.
“News of Monsanto’s divestment of Posilac is one more sign that no-one wants the growth hormone rBGH used in milk production, not even the company that makes it,†said Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. “In the last year we’ve seen retailers including Walmart, Kroger, and Starbucks fall like dominoes in the race to meet consumer demand for artificial growth hormone-free milk. “
Food & Water Watch contends that the last several attempts by Monsanto to salvage rBGH’s profitability have been underhanded. Just last month, a widely publicized study came out with the claim that rBGH was good for the environment. Much coverage of the study failed to note that the lead researcher was in fact a Monsanto consultant and another researcher was the company’s technical manager for rBGH.
“RBGH is not used by small-eco-friendly farms. The artificial hormone has contributed to the growth of mega-dairy operations that cram together thousands of cows generating mountains of waste that are toxic to us and to our environment,†explained Hauter.
At the same time Monsanto tried to fix the image of rBGH, the company has been trying to limit consumer information on the artificial hormone. Faced with consistent resistance in the marketplace and a failed attempt to get the U.S. Food & Drug Administration to restrict “rBGH-free†labels even more, through the group AFACT, Monsanto started going to state governments to limit “artificial hormone-free†labels.
“Monsanto has been urging state agriculture departments and Governors to deny consumers the right to whether or not rBGH was used on their milk and that threat is very real no matter who is manufacturing the hormone,†continued Hauter.
In Ohio, the consumer opposition to limiting labels was simply ignored by the state agriculture department. Using a Freedom of Information Act request, Food & Water Watch obtained all official comments submitted to the agency. Of the handful of supporters of the rule, every single one of them was connected to the dairy industry, meaning they had a financial stake in the outcome of the rule.
Originally posted by ellenr: Just last month, a widely publicized study came out with the claim that rBGH was good for the environment. Much coverage of the study failed to note that the lead researcher was in fact a Monsanto consultant and another researcher was the company’s technical manager for rBGH.
There's billions of dollars invested in spin agencies and professional paid shills by companies like Monsanto. It's the new growth industry. These "studies" make up the majority of studies submitted to administrations like the FDA, USDA, CSPA and EPA. When these administrations tell us that "the majority of studies proved(?) the product/drug/additive, etc. is safe", their approval ratings aren't solely based upon independent, unbiased, no-conflict-of-interest studies conducted by the administrations themselves. If 10 studies, for example, are reviewed and 7 out of 10 positive studies are submitted (even though conducted by indirect-company-paid whores) guess what kind of approval rating a product/drug/additive receives?
Thanks for posting this, ellen. Refreshing to know that there's a little sobbing going on in the Monsanto board room today.
The pharmaceutical companies play the same game, as was recently exposed. If 10 studies are done and 9 are negative to their product, they will publish the one that is not-negative.
Along similar lines: "The Bush administration has proposed rolling back protections for the nation’s wildlife by rewriting the Endangered Species Act. The proposed rule change would allow federal agencies to decide whether protected species would be imperiled by agency projects. This would eliminate the independent scientific reviews that have been required for more than three decades." decades."
(Altho I don't know how 'independent' they have been in the last 7 years.)
Posts: 940 | Location: Zone 6b Beautiful New Jersey | Registered: June 20, 2002
The pharmaceutical companies play the same game, as was recently exposed. If 10 studies are done and 9 are negative to their product, they will publish the one that is not-negative.
Along similar lines: "The Bush administration has proposed rolling back protections for the nation’s wildlife by rewriting the Endangered Species Act. The proposed rule change would allow federal agencies to decide whether protected species would be imperiled by agency projects. This would eliminate the independent scientific reviews that have been required for more than three decades." decades."
(Altho I don't know how 'independent' they have been in the last 7 years.)
The ESA should be rewritten, it is one of the most anti private property rights laws/rules we have ever had. If ya own the land the government shouldn't be ablt to come in and tell ya how you can use the property.
Posts: 56 | Location: Versailles, MO | Registered: December 04, 2007
