Group Urges Boycott of Milk From ‘Supercows’

Asking consumers, “Would you drink hormone-laced milk?” a Northern California group has fired the opening shots in their battle against a controversial plan to turn dairy cattle into “Supercows.”

In a series of national advertisements, the Humane Farming Assn. warns that consumers may have already drunk milk from test herds injected with special growth hormones and urges a boycott of the substance.

“What you’re witnessing is a very hard-hitting consumer education campaign that we had hoped that we’d never need to launch,” said Bradley Miller, executive director of the San Francisco-based association.

The ads, run in November in Time and U. S. News & World Report magazines, are the latest skirmish in a long-running controversy over the bovine growth hormone somatotropin, known as BST or BGH. BST is naturally produced in cattle, but researchers have found that injections of the synthetic hormone can increase milk production by more than 10%

Feelings on both sides run strong.

“They’re trying to scare people not only about new technologies, but about the milk supply and I think that’s wrong,” said Deborah DeGraff, spokeswoman for Monsanto, one of the four companies developing BST.

DeGraff said an FDA ruling prohibited her from promoting BST, but she could say it had been researched and developed as a management tool for dairy farmers for 10 years.

The Dairy Industry Coalition issued a point-by-point rebuttal of the Humane Farming Assn.’s ads, saying studies have shown the hormones are not harmful to humans and urging consumers to “Get the facts, not the fiction.”

But Miller said his ads have prompted thousands of calls to the headquarters of the 70,000-member consumer and animal protection association.

“People are just shocked to hear that the industry would even be considering the use of this hormone,” Miller said.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved BGH for trial use, and has found hormones used for milk production to be safe for humans. Final approval is pending.

“The only question now pertains to its effect on animals. That’s still up in the air,” said FDA spokeswoman Sharon Snider.

Miller said one of the association’s concerns is that carrying more milk means cows are more likely to develop leg and udder ailments. That means more suffering and more treatment with antibiotics and other drugs, Miller said.

“It makes dairy farming much more drug intensive,” he said.

Critics also say it is too soon to tell if the hormone is really safe. They also question the need for increased production in light of perennial milk surpluses.

For the 1989-90 marketing year, there were 8.4 billion pounds of surplus milk and 10.4 billion pounds of surplus milk one year later, the USDA said. Much of the surplus was bought by the government to make into butter for various programs.

Farmers question whether consumers will want milk produced with a genetically engineered hormone and also contend it would favor large, factory-type operations.

In previous battles, the National Dairy Board has come under fire from some members who say it has spent $1.1 million promoting BST. The board maintains it has focused on maintaining consumer confidence in milk, not promoting BST.

Lawmakers in Wisconsin even banned the hormone for a while, although an effort to extend the prohibition was thwarted this month when Gov. Tommy G. Thompson vetoed the bill.

Supporters point to studies showing that the hormone is not harmful.

Congress’ Office of Technology Assessment has said that the hormone “poses no additional risks to consumers in food products, does not harm cows, and will not alone economically disadvantage the traditional farm operator.”