|By Robert Cohen Executive Director|
SOUR CREAM & SOUR GRAPES--
ONE DOZEN MILK LIES FROM CLINTON
Monday, February 8, 1999 begins a momentous week in America's history. William Jefferson Clinton will NOT be impeached, so this column is dedicated to our President. Clinton told America that he did NOT inhale, did NOT pluck Jennifer's Flowers, did NOT have relations with Monica...and he had the audacity to pose for a milk moustache ad while running for president, despite the fact that he is allergic to milk and dairy products.
Notwithstanding his denials, we clearly recognize, and history will ultimately record the truth about this man.
Yet, Mr. Clinton has committed a greater crime against Americans and for that we cannot forgive or forget.
In his State of the Union Address of 1997, Clinton praised MONSANTO, the manufacturer of the controversial genetically engineered bovine growth hormone. Clinton's friendship was offered to MONSANTO in 1996 when he enacted the ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE ACT, public law number 104-294. That law was signed while America patiently waited for a federal judge's overdue decision as to whether the incriminating study (proving that the lab animals had gotten cancer) would be released. In addition to protecting MONSANTO'S financial interests, President Clinton's act became their insurance policy. That law would have sent any individual to jail for releasing Monsanto's secret study.
The evidence reveals that laboratory animals treated with that milk hormone got cancer. That fact was revealed by Canadian scientists who recently had the opportunity to review the data with unbiased eyes. The same poison is now contained in the milk, cheese and ice cream that Americans consume.
MONSANTO'S genetically engineered bovine growth hormone was approved in November of 1993. Due to the great controversy, a moratorium was placed on its use while the Executive Branch (the Clinton White House) had an opportunity to "STUDY" the issues. The "EXECUTIVE BRANCH REPORT" was issued in January of 1994 and, shortly thereafter, BST was approved.
The White House REPORT, analyzed five years after its issue date, imparts tragedy and comedy, lies and deceit. In issuing its report, the White House arrived eleven conclusions, each one glowing brightly as a beacon of irrationality. Taken together, these eleven conclusions illuminate the massive fraud perpetrated by MONSANTO and the White House. The trail leads from Monsanto to FDA to the Oval Office.
THE WHITE HOUSE CONCLUSIONS, with commentary:POINT #1 "BST-TREATED MILK IS SAFE BECAUSE IT IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM NORMAL MILK."
We know that BST-treated milk and untreated milk are different. Levels of IGF-I always increase in BST-treated milk. That must logically change the conclusion of Point #1. If we assume that BST milk is safe because it is indistinguishable from non-BST milk, then the converse must be true. BST-milk is unsafe and it IS different from non-BST milk.
There were 140,000 dairy farms in America in 1994 when this report was issued. At the beginning of 1997 there were just 100,000 dairy farms. By January 1, 1999 there were just 92,000 dairy farms in America. Many farmers went out of business due to horrible effects from this hormone. FDA denied that there were adverse effects on cows while actually receiving formal complaints from 500 farmers during the first 12 months following its approval.
In 1998 the price of butter exceeded $4.50 per pound in many markets. Milk production increased, inventory increased and the price of dairy products soared. This was no typical supply and demand economic theory. Farmers who survived deleterious effects of BST were delirious with joy in 1998, achieving the most profitable year in their history from artificially inflated prices.
I do not know who wrote this report, but, as it comes from the White House, I must assume President Clinton had to be aware of it. Doesn't the "buck" stop on his desk? Hey, Mr. President, you're pushing it here. You've lost credibility, yet you're sinking even deeper. In other words, public welfare costs will decrease because we allow MONSANTO the right to distribute a genetically engineered hormone that causes cancer to laboratory animals and makes the milk different? You're pulling my leg, aren't you? Milk prices have INCREASED since BST approval. This has added costs to all of the above programs. Guess who continues to pay the price?
The first part contradicts points #2, #3, and #4. The second part suggests costs will decline in later years. We've heard things like this before from politicians promising tax hikes for next year and then adding, "Don't worry, taxes will decrease in later years."
Federal feeding program? You mean to tell me that the government also feed farmer's cows? The government subsidizes the milk, buys the surplus, gives tax breaks to companies doing research designing chemicals to poison us, and feeds their animals. What's the point? Why not just pay the dairy farmers to come to Washington, D.C., and sit at a desk like the rest of the bureaucrats and do nothing? It would probably save Americans money, and we'd be a heck of a lot healthier.
If you believe that one, I've got a bridge to sell to you. I request that each American consumer give me just one penny saved from a quart of milk. That would add up to 270,000,000 people times one cent = $2,700,000. Turn over the money and I'll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
The milk controversy resulted in decreased liquid milk consumption, despite more milk moustache ads. However, butter, ice cream and cheese consumption rates soared, as did obesity rates. In 1998, 1.5 billion less pounds of milk were consumed by Americans than in 1997. If every American realizes that the "new milk" contains increased levels of hormones, will milk consumption increase or decrease?
Point number nine is worthy of nomination for a very special classification by itself. The category is "The Environment." This conclusion is a transparent attempt to seduce and brainwash the public.
This kind of manure is appropriate for something coming out of the
Executive Office. There was a lack of sound reasoning applied by our
government scientists when they assumed that fewer cows would result in
less flatulence. I wonder, just how many federal dollars did the White
House spend to come up with the data for this brilliant deduction?
Consider that BST-treated cows will eat more food to produce 20 percent
more milk. If they do not eat more food, then they will have to
dissolve their own bones and burn up their own muscle and fat to produce
that 20 percent more milk product. So, if they eat more food, then
they're going to pass more gas. Perhaps we can get the author of this
study a job writing for Saturday Night Live, Leno or Letterman.
The Canadian Health Ministry recently turned down MONSANTO'S application for the genetically engineered hormone. They no longer accept American dairy products.
The European Community also placed a moratorium on the use of BST in their markets until the year 2002. This ban occurred sometime after the publication of this Executive Report. This not only invalidates point #10, but helps to invalidate points #1 through #9 as well. Both bans were done for safety reasons.
In other words, if we had determined that BST was not safe, we would have hurt the prospects of the new genetic engineering technology. That technology has NOT yet been perfected. In Steven Spielberg's movie, Jurassic Park, we became witnesses to a scenario where errors in genetic engineering caused horrible consequences.
When just one amino acid in a hormone or protein differs from the normal genetic code there can be dire consequences. Sickle cell anemia is just one example. Another example occurs in Alzheimer's disease. The substitution of just one amino acid, phenlyalanine, appears to be the basis for one type of hereditary Alzheimer disease. With BST, improper research developed a product with a resulting gene transcription error. That error surfaced long after all of the research on BST had been performed and submitted to FDA. (Amino acid number 144 should have been lysine; it was manufactured as epsilon-N-acetyllysine, a bacterium amino acid).
The "buck stopped" on Clinton's desk for one last opportunity to reveal an ugly truth. The WHITE HOUSE report became the final obstacle and simultaneous to its release came BST approval.
When laboratory animals became sick, the incriminating data were hidden. When data proved laboratory animals get cancer from BST, the government, in its great display of bureaucratic strength, did not allow such data to be released. "BST-treated milk is indistinguishable from normal milk." Approval was based on this assumption. On page 22 of the 64-page Executive Report the White House wrote:
"There are slight variations in milk fat and milk-protein content immediately after BST treatment."
"The meat from BST-treated cows tends to have a lower fat content."
"A slight shift in the Kjeldahl nitrogen factions (casein, whey protein, and non-protein nitrogen) has been observed."
These were unconsidered clues in a puzzle not yet solved. Combined with the irrefutable fact that levels of IGF in milk increase after cows are treated with BST, this becomes one more White House fabrication in a long series of lies that have become acceptable to most Americans. The two milks were not indistinguishable.
This becomes more than an impeachable crime. Cancer in laboratory animals from an additive now in our food supply portends a new millennium filled with unnecessary suffering.
Do you know of someone who should get a copy of this newsletter?
Have them send their Email address to firstname.lastname@example.org and it will be done!