Are You Ready for the Super Cows?

Almost overnight, the super cows have arrived and are busy producing milk that is already being sold--without any distinguishing marks--in supermarket dairy cases near you.

On farms throughout the country, dairy cows entering the ninth week of lactation, or the peak of their production, are being injected with bovine somatotropin, or BST, the first major product of agriculture biotechnology.

Within 24 hours of treatment, the animals’ milk production can increase as much as 20%. The exact number of farmers adopting this high science, according to Monsanto Co., the leading manufacturer of the drug, has surpassed 2,000 in 46 states. Sales of BST, trademarked as Prosilac, began less than two weeks ago.

The dimensions of this event can only be understood when one compares an average cow’s current milk production of 14,841 pounds a year with the projected totals after BST treatments: 16,641 pounds. In other words, the drug stimulates the average cow to produce an additional 1,800 pounds of milk annually--that’s equivalent to the weight of a small car such as a GEO Metro.

Even before BST, American dairymen could claim that they were producing more milk with fewer animals on fewer farms than ever before. With the advent of this drug, current production records could be shattered in a country that is already awash in a tax-supported milk surplus.

*

A Clinton Administration Executive Branch report on BST, released last month, said that the additional costs to the federal government from implementing the animal drug will be substantial. In the first four years of BST usage, the federal Treasury will have to invest $510 million, in addition to current spending, to purchase excess production under current government milk price support regulations.

This prospect, and the several related health issues, have created all kinds of controversy:

* Consumer advocates are trying to persuade the public that BST is bad science and are urging a boycott of the milk.

* Government officials are attempting to reassure everyone that BST is safe and that milk from treated cows is no different from any other milk.

* Drug companies, which invested $1 billion to develop BST, are hoping the issue will quickly fade. The glare of publicity can only dampen enthusiasm for the drug and slow sales--a frightening prospect for companies, such as Monsanto, that are eager to recoup their huge investment.

* Dairy farmers are torn. They can use BST as a quick way to increase a herd’s production and the farm’s revenue. Or they can delay and await the developing public reaction to the drug.

The Clinton Administration report on BST endorsed the drug and said that government scientists believe that milk and meat from BST-treated cows is safe and virtually identical to products from untreated animals.

*

Even so, the Pure Food Campaign, a Washington-based advocacy group critical of biotechnology, recently filed suit in federal court in Madison, Wis., seeking to halt sales of BST. The Pure Food Campaign contends that doubts remain about the safety of BST and that the government has not conducted several key tests on the drug.

Pure Food’s chief complaint is that BST’s ability to increase production will stress cows, causing the animals to develop mastitis, a disease of the udder. Any sign of mastitis and dairy farmers would be tempted to increase the prescribed levels of antibiotics given cows in order to keep the animals healthy. Any rise in antibiotics usage might be reflected in potentially harmful levels accumulating in commercial milk.

As part of the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of BST in late 1993, Monsanto must conduct tests of BST-treated cows to determine whether the milk contains abnormal or illegal levels of antibiotics.

“First, FDA approves BST for use and then they say they will monitor how much antibiotics end up in milk or how much mastitis is being caused in cows,” complained Andrew Kimbrell, an attorney in Washington for the Pure Food Campaign. “I have never heard of FDA approving an animal drug first and then deciding to do the human safety tests after the approval. . . . The public thinks that an FDA approval means that a drug is safe. It doesn’t, and the courts should make an independent investigation (of BST).”

*

In response to these and other, similar charges, a biotechnology trade group issued a statement calling the Pure Food Campaign “extremists” who promote “fear.”

“I’m confident that this lawsuit, like the other obstructionist and dilatory maneuvers before, will be dismissed,” said Carl B. Feldbaum, president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization in Washington. “When it is, we will no longer have our progress held hostage to baseless fears. . . . It is important to keep this issue in perspective. BST occurs naturally in all cows, whether they have been treated with BST or not. It is the substance that makes them grow and produce milk. It is present in trace amounts in all of the milk and meat we eat.”

A Monsanto spokesman said BST injection and subsequent increases in milk production will not harm cows.

“The cow is capable of producing the additional milk and BST allows the cow to do it,” said Tom McDermott, Monsanto’s director of biotechnology communications. “In our field tests of BST, 72% of the farmers reported that the cows produced nine additional pounds of milk a day. Similar increases can be seen from other animal management techniques such as milking three times a day and is not harmful.”

The Clinton Administration’s BST report concedes, however, that future sales of the product are “uncertain” despite all the assurances about safety.

*

As part of the FDA approval of BST, dairy firms that do not use the animal drug can say so on their product label. If dairies and supermarket companies widely adopt anti-BST labeling, there could be a strong consumer backlash against the compound. The Pure Food Campaign claims to have enlisted commitments from as many as 150 national food companies to reject the use of BST or the sale of its byproducts.

Just last week, for instance, La Habra-based Food 4 Less Supermarkets Inc. announced that all milk sold in its 222 California stores will be from cows free of Monsanto’s BST drug. Food 4 Less operates Alpha Beta, Boys and Viva markets, in addition to its name-sake stores.

California Milk Producers, the cooperative that ships dairy products to Food 4 Less, announced that virtually all its farmer members have signed affidavits pledging not to use BST supplements, according to Gary Korsmeier, chief executive officer for the co-op, the state’s largest.

California Milk Producers has also provided similar guarantees, he said, to Vons Grocery Co., Stater Bros. Markets and Hughes Markets.

In fact, some surveys indicate that public concerns about BST may lead to a reduction in overall milk consumption of between 4% and 20% a year, which would compound the surplus issue and increase government price supports.

*

Consumer resistance to BST may also dim prospects for all future applications of agriculture biotechnology, the Clinton report stated. While the report found that application of biotechnology in the medical sector is robust, the efforts in the food industry were described at “fragile and financially vulnerable.”

One prime example is Calgene Inc.’s Flavr Savr tomato, scheduled to debut last fall. The FDA has yet to approve the tomato’s implanted gene that resists molding and allows vine ripening. Calgene reported last week that it lost $21 million during the six months ending Dec. 31, almost double its losses from the same period in 1992. The company announced that 1994 losses will be even greater.