New Hormone: More Milk, More Talk : Biotechnology: A hormone supplement for dairy cows was approved last week. Milk production should increase, but no labeling will be required for milk from the treated cows.
After numerous false starts, the food biotechnology revolution officially got under way last week when the federal government gave its final approval to a genetically engineered hormone that increases the milk production of dairy cows.
Savaged by critics, scrutinized by health officials, greeted with ambivalence by farmers but hailed as a breakthrough by food and chemical concerns, milk from cows manipulated by biotechnology could be on supermarket shelves as soon as February.
In announcing the government approval of bovine somatotropin (BST), U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner David A. Kessler said: “There is virtually no difference in milk from (BST-) treated and untreated cows. . . . The public can be confident that milk and meat from BST-treated cows is safe to consume.”
Despite all the attention BST has received during the debate over its safety, FDA declined to require that milk from cows treated with the controversial drug carry any special labels or identification.
The decision to forgo a label is a major victory for biotechnology proponents, who believe that any special product markings would unnecessarily alarm consumers about the process and damage public acceptance. Under the FDA regulation, companies could voluntarily provide biotechnology labels on their products. But it is highly unlikely that any firm would do so in light of several consumer groups’ announcement that they will boycott all such foods.
*
The Government Accounting Office, a Congressional oversight group, recently reported that annual sales of biotech foods could reach $10 billion by the year 2000. As many as 150 companies were researching various aspects of food biotechnology, GAO reported in its study, “Food Safety and Technology: Innovative Strategies May Be Needed to Regulate New Food Technologies.”
Last week, FDA approved the Monsanto Co.’s version of BST, which will be marketed under the brand name POSILAC. Other companies awaiting FDA action on BST products include American Cyanamid, Upjohn Co. and Eli Lilly.
BST, a protein hormone, is normally present in cows and assists in milk production. The biotechnology version of BST is identical to its natural counterpart. When administered to cows, the biotechnologically derived BST stimulates milk production by as much as 20%, according to various estimates. However, the treated cows produce milk with normal amounts of BST and any residual doses are otherwise discharged by the animal, according to Monsanto.
“Those dairy farmers who use supplemental BST in their herds will be producing the same high-quality, wholesome milk they always have--but they will be doing it more efficiently than ever before,” said Walter P. Hobgood, vice president of Monsanto’s Animal Sciences Division in St. Louis.
Major food industry trade groups also welcomed the FDA’s action. The Washington-based National Food Processors Assn. hailed the decision as “good government policy based on sound science.”
Monsanto officials emphasized that BST is not a radical change in the dairy industry but just one in a long line of scientific advances.
*
Critics, however, contend that there was little or no reason to increase American milk production because there is already a large surplus that must be absorbed by the federal government under the farm price support system. Groups such as the Humane Farming Assn. in San Rafael, Calif., have announced their intention to boycott any dairy product from BST-treated cows.
“This is a big mistake,” said Mark Silbergeld, director of Consumers Union’s Washington office. “This is not good for the consumer nor the U.S. Treasury. Our estimate is that use of BST will increase federal milk support payments by $100 million a year. . . . This will just increase production of an overproduced crop. . . . That’s really some efficiency. If they wanted to develop something useful, then why not invent a growth hormone for something expensive like red bell peppers?”
The economic impact of BST was explored in the recently published book, “The Dairy Debate: Consequences of Bovine Growth Hormone and Rotational Grazing Technologies” (ANR Publications: $31.50). Co-author David Campbell, a UC Davis economic and public policy analyst, said that continuing public concern about BST could precipitate a drop in overall milk and dairy product consumption.
“Small to medium dairy farmers,” Campbell said, “mostly in the Midwest and the Northeast, will be hurt the worst by this, as will the rural communities that are dependent on these farms.”
There is also some doubt about how readily dairy farmers will embrace BST and some worry that use of the compound in only a portion of the nation’s dairy herds may taint the image of all milk products.
Walter Kessler, a Galt, Calif., dairyman, is a member of the California Dairy Campaign, a group opposed to BST.
“I don’t want to use it and there are a bunch of us that don’t want to use it,” said Kessler, who owns about 250 cows. “We don’t need it and don’t know if it will work anyway.
“Giving a cow a shot, an injection, in order to get more milk doesn’t make a whole lot of sense,” he said. “Through proper feed management and selective breeding we can improve production . . . and we have over the past 20 years.”
*
Thomas J. Hoban IV, a North Carolina State University sociology professor, who co-authored a recent opinion survey on biotechnology, said: “The stakes are very high. A lot of money went into developing these (genetically engineered) products and consumer acceptance is increasingly important.”
The pollsters found that, overall, 64% supported biotechnology, 27% were opposed, and 10% had no opinion. The survey, conducted in 1992, has a 3% margin of error.
The numbers vary when specific biotechnological applications are reviewed.
Most of those surveyed, or 66%, were in favor of genetic transfer from one plant species to another. Other applications fared much less favorably: 39% are in favor of moving genes from one animal species to another, 25% approve of making animal-to-plant transfers, and only 10% are in favor of placing human genes in animals.
However, Gail Feenstra, co-author with Campbell of “The Dairy Debate,” said the Hoban study looks at biotechnology in general and did not focus on consumer reactions to BST.
“From looking at all the relevant surveys, it appears that consumers are concerned about BST, and there is a significant (number who) would decrease milk consumption if it was present,” said Feenstra, nutrition and food systems analyst for the University of California’s Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program in Davis. “About 80% of those surveyed (in several recent polls) wanted BST milk to be labeled.”
*
Consumer and environmental groups still question whether BST is safe as an element in the food supply. Some claim that treated cows, with a 20% increase in milk output, will become more stressed and susceptible to disease. A particular concern is an infection of the udder known as mastitis. To forestall any such illness, dairy farmers would be under some pressure to administer increasing amounts of antibiotic drugs to keep the animals healthy. Residues of these drugs could be transferred to humans through milk or meat, thus lessening their effectiveness to treat human disease. FDA, in announcing the BST approval, said that sufficient safeguards are present to detect illegal levels of antibiotics or other drugs in milk.
Nevertheless, Monsanto has agreed to several unprecedented steps to monitor the effect of BST in the food supply. According to FDA, the company will:
* Begin a two-year tracking system of milk production and drug residues in the 21 top dairy states--including California--that will compare the amount of milk discarded prior to BST usage with the amounts discarded after use of the hormone begins.
* Conduct a 12-month study on the amount of milk discarded because of positive drug tests between BST-treated cows and those without the drug.
* Establish a system to monitor all BST use and to follow up on all complaints.
* Monitor animals from 24 commercial dairy herds for mastitis, animal drug use and resulting loss of milk.
The proposed safeguards are not enough to mollify the Pure Food Campaign, which has announced it will demonstrate at the FDA’s Los Angeles office tomorrow at 10 a.m. The group is opposed to biotechnology in general and the agency’s recent approval of BST in particular. Campaign representatives are urging major area supermarket chains to reject any BST-treated dairy products.
“We believe that (food biotechnology) is being rammed through without the public really knowing about it,” said Danila Oder, Los Angeles coordinator for the Pure Food Campaign. “By demonstrating, we are trying to educate the public about a policy that will affect many foods that they eat; virtually any dairy product. The public has not had a chance to fully assess the effect this will have on their health.”
