X-Sender: rwolfson@pop3.concentric.net
Message-Id: <l03130301b2af4081979d@[206.173.215.60]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 21:37:55 -0500
To: info@natural-law.ca
From: Richard Wolfson <rwolfson@concentric.net>
Subject: BGH article
X-UIDL: fb1a417383994a35bf2c83967469d10c
Here is a slanted Editorial from Canada's main national paper the Globe &
Mail.
Following it is a response sent in by Robert Cohen, with the real facts,
and a short reply by me. Anyone else who wants to send in a letter to the
editor please do so. You can send it to:
letters@globeandmail.ca
****************************************************************************
****
*****
We'll get it when the cows come home-
Why is it taking so long to approve the BST hormone?
Tuesday, December 22, 1998
Globe & Mail (Canada)
As we watch the federal government's health protection branch writhe over
approving
the use of a bovine growth hormone in dairy cattle, we cannot but think of
that national
characterization: as cautious as a Canadian.
The federal agency is now talking about approval for bovine somatropin -- a
hormone
that raises milk production in cows 10 to 15 per cent -- but only in three
or four years.
This for a substance that has already received a thumbs-up in the United
States and
roughly 25 other countries.
Undoubtedly the larger context for this dilly-dallying is the battering the
health protection
branch has been taking over everything from blood to breast implants to
heart drugs. It
almost looks as if it's saying: Damn it, we aren't going to be out-safetied
on this one, no
matter how safe BST really is.
Despite fears recently raised by six Health Canada scientists -- and we
applaud their
efforts in bringing their concerns forward -- we think they and Health
Canada are now
being too cautious even for Canadians. Here is our reasoning.
(1) BST is not thalidomide. This is a natural substance, which naturally
appears in cow's bodies. Increases of it in milk have likely already been
proven safe in humans because of an experiment milk drinkers have
unconsciously been conducting on themselves all over the world.
Over the last 40 years there has been a roughly sixfold increase in the
milk production of the average cow. Some significant part of this
extraordinary growth undoubtedly comes from selective breeding of more
productive animals. These cows are likely naturally high
producers of growth hormone. No problems have turned up from drinking their
milk. There is strong evidence that we don't need more rat safety studies,
because the human studies are already in.
(2) Most -- 80 to 90 per cent -- of the hormone is destroyed in
pasteurization. Must of the rest is believed to be destroyed in digestion.
Some small increase in an insulin growth factor has been noted, but it fits
within the normal rises or falls noted in the human body. The increase is
0.1 per cent above what the body on average produces. There has been some
linkage between insulin growth factor and cancers, but the biology of
cancer suggests it is created by cancer growth, not responsible for it. And
again, look at the increase: one-tenth of 1 per cent.
(3) There is nothing sinister about the fact that the hormone is produced
by bioengineering. It is chemically the same hormone as exists in cows'
bodies. All that is different is that the means of production have changed.
Arguments over this intrusion of "biotechnology" into the farm remind us of
debates at the end of the last century about whether "natural" ice -- e.g.
frozen river and lake water -- was better or worse than "artificial" ice --
e.g. water frozen in a refrigerator. Ice is ice. Cow growth hormone is cow
growth hormone.
(4) There is some suggestion that cows given injections of the hormone
suffer more mastitis, an infection of their udders. The evidence is
contradictory, as U.S. Food and Drug Administration studies indicate that
seasonal increases in the incidence of mastitis are 9 times the increase
attributed to the hormone rates which could be attributed to the growth
hormone injections.
(5) Animals with mastitis are treated with antibiotics. Fears that this can
increase antibiotic resistance in humans have been raised. But the milk
cannot be sold until the residues of antibiotics have disappeared. Farmers
testifying before a Senate committee investigating BST described in great
detail the rigour of antibiotics testing and the economic axe that falls on
the farmer who flouts it. And if BST cows get sick too often, trust us, the
Canadian farmer will stop using it without a government ukase.
(6) Opponents of the introduction of BST hold up the bogeyman of Monsanto,
the giant U.S. chemical maker who produces it. The scenario is something
along the lines of "evil chemical company trying to destroy the purity of
cow's milk." To fearmongers one would simply suggest they look at the virus
of litigation companies try to avoid catching. We point with fear and
trembling to Dow Corning's slide into bankruptcy protection over the still
unproven role its breast implants have in causing illnesses. If they had an
inkling there was a real danger to it, Monsanto would have to be the
dumbest company this side of Bre-X to push for BST's approval.
Even this page -- in most matters, we're twice as cautious as the average
Canadian --
believes the furor over BST is misplaced. Let's get on with the approval.
*****************************************
Response by Robert Cohen
Dear Editor,
I just got my copy, cold off the presses (one week late) of your editorial
endorsing approval of Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth
hormone.
In your editorial you listed six conclusions, each of which is severly
flawed. You stated that:
(1) BST is a natural substance, which naturally appears in cow's bodies.
IN FACT, THE VERSION OF MONSANTO'S BST CONTAINED A "FREAK" AMINO ACID.
EVIDENCE WAS PUBLISHED IN THE JULY 3, 1994 ISSUE OF THE JOURNAL OF PROTEIN
SCIENCE, WRITTEN BY MONSANTO SCIENTIST, BERNARD VIOLAND.
(2) Most -- 80 to 90 per cent -- of the hormone is destroyed in
pasteurization.
THAT CONCLUSION IS A LIE, A FRAUD OF GREAT MAGNITUDE PERFORMED AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH IN 1989 BY PAUL GROENEWEGEN. MILK WAS HEATED AT 162
DEGREES FAHRENHEIT FOR 30 MINUTES AND ONLY 19 PERCENT OF THE BST WAS
DESTROYED. MILK IS USUALLY PASTEURIZED FOR 15 SECONDS AT THAT TEMPERATURE,
NOT 30 MINUTES.
(3) There is nothing sinister about the fact that the hormone is produced
by bioengineering.
MONSANTO HAS EVIDENCE THAT EVERY LAB ANIMAL GOT CANCER. YOUR BRAVE
SCIENTISTS ONLY EXAMINED THE FIRST 90 DAYS OF AN 180 DAY STUDY (AUTHORED BY
RICHARD, ODAGLIA AND DESLEX). MYSTERIOUSLY, THE SECOND HALF OF THE KEY
STUDY WAS STOLEN FROM A SAFE. WILL YOU REVIEW THE SECOND HALF?
(4) There is some suggestion that cows given injections of the hormone
suffer more mastitis, an infection of their udders. The evidence is
contradictory.
FDA HAS 500 COMPLAINTS BY DAIRY FARMERS FROM THE UNITED STATES DOCUMENTING
THESE INCREASED CASES OF MASTITIS. FIFTH ESTATE REVEALED THAT INFORMATION
IN A 1994 PROGRAM.
(5) Animals with mastitis are treated with antibiotics. Milk containing
unsafe levels of antibiotics would not be accepted by processors.
CONSUMERS UNION TESTED MILK SAMPLES IN THE NEW YORK METROPOLITAN AREA AND
DETECTED THE PRESENSE OF 52 DIFFERENT ANTIMICROBIALS.
(6) Opponents of the introduction of BST hold up the bogeyman of Monsanto,
the giant U.S. chemical maker who produces it.
MONSANTO PAID BRIBES IN THE FORM OF PAC MONEY TO FOUR AMERICAN CONGRESSMEN,
OFFERED BRIBES TO CANADIAN HEALTH MINISTERS, SENT THEIR TOP SCIENTISTS TO
WORK AT FDA (MARGARET MILLER) WHERE SHE REVIEWED HER OWN RESEARCH AND HAD
THEIR OWN ATTORNEY (MICHAEL TAYLOR) HIRED BY FDA WHERE HE WROTE THE LAWS
GOVERNING HOW MILK CONTAINING THE NEW HORMONE WOULD BE LABELED.
Your editorial is poorly researched and betrays the health and safety of
every Canadian.
Very truly yours,
Robert Cohen
<i4crob@idt.net>
http://www.antidairycoalition.com
...................
My response
I was shocked to read your December 22 editorial in support of the approval
of BST, otherwise known as BGH or bovine growth hormone.
Facts recently uncovered showed the hormone was approved in the USA only
because the research showing it caused very serious damage to animals was
hidden. Cysts of the thyroid, inflammation of the prostate, elevated
antibody levels were seen, and other damaging health effects were seen in
animals givent this hormone.
ortunately, scientists at Health Canada brought these facts to light, even
though upper level management at Health Canada were bowing to industry
pressure to get the hormone approved.
I urge you to report the full facts, and take a cautionary stance, which is
to not support approval of this hormone as long as there are clear
indications of safety risks and uncertainties.
Richard Wolfson, PhD
Consumer Right to Know Campaign, Ottawa
_________________________________________________________
Richard Wolfson, PhD
Consumer Right to Know Campaign,
for Mandatory Labelling and Long-term
Testing of all Genetically Engineered Foods,
500 Wilbrod Street
Ottawa, ON Canada K1N 6N2
tel. 613-565-8517 fax. 613-565-1596
email: rwolfson@concentric.net
Our website, http://www.natural-law.ca/genetic/geindex.html
contains more information on genetic engineering as well as
previous genetic engineering news items
Subscription fee to genetic engineering news is $35 for 12 months
See website for details.
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail