tony <<benign by design>> tweedale
internet: esact@selway.umt.edu, tel 406-542-1709
grad, env studies prgm. rankin hall, u. montana missoula mt 59812
|> 1 planet, 1 experiment--1 species? <|
(derived from Edward O. Wilson, biologist)
Article: 34565 of sci.environment
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa,talk.environment,sci.environment
Subject: Re: List of Dairy Products Having NO Gene-Spliced Hormones
Date: 9 Feb 1994 00:20:04 GMT
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
In article <1994Feb8.163856.10384@netnews.wku.edu> camplte1@wkuvx1.wku.edu writes:
>No, it was a denunciation of his attack on these foods (which, by the
>way do not have BGH in them at all. There is absolutely no difference
>between the two milks. The only difference is that one came from a
>cow that got a shot and one came from a cow that didn't.)
This has gotten enormous attention locally because there
are so many dairy producers in this region and because the
initial development was done at Cornell. While the above
assertion is questionable, there are broader questions than
just whether or not the milk is healthy for human
consumption.
Still, let's start there. Independent studies have shown
that more BGH creates more iGFI, which has been proven to
have an adverse affect on human health and has been
indicated in an increase in cancerous tumors. The
Consumers Union claims that the Monsanto tests were faulty
and too short.
There's also the risk to animals. There are reported
symptoms of bloating, indigestion, diarrhea, swollen hocks
and knees, and a higher incidence of cystic ovaries,
twinning, still births, deformities, mastitis, and
subclinical mastitis. The infections are treated with
antibiotics.
Perhaps of greater interest is the whole question of the
economic impact. First, it's very unlikely that the use of
BGH will lower dairy prices. After all, even though the
support price of milk has fallen since 1985, consumer
prices actually rose 29% between 1985 and 1990. And we
don't have a milk shortage to begin with. We have a glut.
In the early 1980s the US government spent $2.1 billion a
*year* to buy milk and other dairy products from farmers
who had no market. The resulting dairy herd elimination
program paid $1.8 billion to farmers who slaughtered 1.55
million cows. Still, between 1987 and 1989 the government
paid up to $13 billion a year to purchase surplus milk.
It's been estimated that a 10% increase in milk production
due to BGH with cost US taxpayers $1.7 billion in the first
two years.
Primarily because of the predicted economic impact to
farmers and taxpayers, local dairies are discouraging their
milk producers from using BGH. In fact, some of the groups
opposed to the FDA's approval of BGH include the National
Family Farm Coalition, the Humane Society, the National
Farmers Union, and the Consumers Union. Sixteen thousand
farmers have petitioned to abolish the National Dairy Board
because of the Board's opposition to labelling.
There's a lot more to the issue than "does it cause cancer
in lab rats?"
--
Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu