Source for MCS Facts

Another Look at Bovine Growth Hormone A Focus article, "Extra Ingredients: Hormones in Food," in the August issue of EHP (102:632-635), included a brief but well-researched and generally accurate account of the debate over recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH). But, in quoting Consumers Union's Jean Halloran, your report unduly emphasized one narrow technical issue and left an erroneous impression of why the CU opposes the use of rbGH. Halloran did indeed note that the hormone insulinlike growth factor 1 (IGF-1), which is found at elevated levels in milk from cows treated with rbGH, has been shown to promote the growth of tumor cells in laboratory experiments. However, she made that point in the context of explaining some of the unanswered questions about possible long-term public health impacts of rbGH use. Exposure to IGF-1 is one of several issues on which the CU believes more and better scientific data are needed. But by emphasizing this point, your report implied that CU currently believes the use of rbGH increases consumers' cancer risk. That is not the case. CU has spoken out against the use of rbGH for several years, and we will continue to do so. Our posture is based on a broad analysis of the benefits, costs, and risks to consumers of the use of this hormone, not primarily on the narrower and largely theoretical possiblility of increased cancer risk. Whatever its perceived benefits to the drug companies who sell it and the dairy farmers who choose to use it, rbGH offers no clear benefits to consumers. The drug's purpose is to boost milk production, but the U.S. already suffers from a surplus of milk. Economic analyses indicate that the retail prices of milk and milk products do not go down in response to an increased oversupply. But the federal government is committed to buy surplus milk, and the cost to taxpayers of that dairy-industry support program could increase by hundreds of millions of dollars in the next few years because of rbGH use. In addition, CU, like the FDA, believes that use of rbGH will increase the risk of udder infections in treated cows, which in turn is likely to result in increased antibiotic use, and may produce a slight dedine in the average quality of milk from rbGH-treated herds. Given these likely impacts of rbGH use, and the lack of any tangible benefit to consumers to offset concern about unresolved questions of long-term health impacts, we are not surprised that surveys show a large majority of the public would prefer not to buy milk from rbGH-treated cows. CU believes consumers have the right to make that choice, and the fate of rbGH should be decided by market forces. For those reasons, we will continue to press for appropriate labeling of milk and dairy products from rbGH-treated cows.