---March 17, 1994---





The David and Goliath battle of the century is shaping up over a
synthetic hormone called rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone)
that was approved by federal officials last month for use in milk
cows in the U.S.

David is a handful of farm and consumer organizations, and
Goliath is a coalition of agrichemical companies backed by top
officials of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).  At issue is the safety of
milk, and the right of consumers to know what chemicals and drugs
have been added to the milk they buy in the grocery store.
Consumer advocates say the public has a right to know.  The
agrichemical industry and the Clinton administration say not.
Last November 5 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
declared rBGH "safe" for use in milk cows, and last month
Monsanto, the chemical company, began selling its version of the
drug to dairy farmers.[1] Other companies hoping to get into the
business are Eli Lilly, UpJohn, and American Cyanamid.

Monsanto's version of the drug is intended to be injected into
milk cows every two weeks, to stimulate milk production by 5% to
20%.  Consumer and farm organizations, including Consumers Union,
publisher of CONSUMER REPORTS magazine, have presented evidence
that byproducts of the hormone treatment are measurable in milk
and are not safe for humans or for cows; they also say approval
of rBGH clearly violated FDA's own regulations.[2]  They want the
product withdrawn from the market, and, until that happens, they
want hormone-containing milk labeled so that consumers can make
an informed choice about the milk they buy.

In eleven different surveys, American consumers have indicated
overwhelmingly that they do not want milk that contains
genetically-engineered hormones, and that they want milk labeled
so they can make an informed choice in the grocery store.[3]  For
example, in a survey of 1000 people in Wisconsin (a leading
milk-producing state), 75% of respondents said they would pay as
much as 44 cents extra per gallon to avoid genetically-engineered
hormones in their milk.  This attitude was consistent regardless
of income levels, educational background, or residence in rural
or urban areas.

In response to consumer concerns, the FDA and Monsanto have
spoken with a single voice: the FDA has warned grocery stores not
to label milk as free of the hormone,[4] and on Feb. 18 Monsanto
sued two milk processors that labeled milk as free of the

It is no accident that the FDA and Monsanto are speaking with one
voice on this issue.  The FDA official responsible for the
agency's labeling policy, Michael R. Taylor, is a former partner
of King & Spaulding, the Washington, D.C. law firm that has
brought the lawsuits on behalf of Monsanto.  Taylor, a lawyer, is
a classic product of the revolving door.  Starting in 1980, he
worked for FDA for 4 years as executive assistant to the
commissioner.  In 1984 he joined King & Spaulding and remained
there until 1991; during that time the law firm represented
Monsanto while the company was seeking FDA approval of rBGH.  In
1991, President Bush's FDA Commissioner, David A. Kessler, Jr.,
revolved Taylor back into FDA as assistant commissioner for
policy.[6]  Kessler himself was retained by President Clinton, as
was Taylor.  Last month Taylor signed the FEDERAL REGISTER notice
warning grocery stores not to label milk as free of rBGH, thus
giving Monsanto a powerful boost in its fight to prevent
consumers from knowing whether rBGH produced their milk.
FDA offers two justifications for preventing labeling: 1) FDA is
not requiring anyone to keep track of who is using rBGH and who
is not and, without a paper trail, grocery stores might make
false claims if they said their milk was rBGH-free.  2) FDA says
there is "virtually" no difference between milk from cows
injected with rBGH and cows not injected.  Virtually means
"almost." (More on this claim below.)

To remedy the first problem, Consumers Union had suggested that
FDA simply require Monsanto to maintain a public list of people
who buy rBGH, thus allowing grocery stores and milk wholesalers
to determine easily whether any particular farmer is, or isn't,
using the controversial drug.  FDA refused.  And Monsanto is not
revealing who is buying rBGH.

By its lawsuits, Monsanto has sent a clear message to anyone who
might be tempted to label milk with words about rBGH.  Evidently
Monsanto fears that informed consumers might choose not to buy
milk produced by rBGH-treated cows.   An internal company memo
dated Sept. 21, 1993, equates a government labeling requirement
with a government "ban" on its product.[7]
Monsanto has a lot at stake.  The company has been hurt in recent
years by lawsuits and publicity over several of its chemical
products that it insisted were safe, such as the herbicide
2,4,5-T used in Agent Orange in Vietnam, and PCBs, which Congress
banned in 1976.  Some Wall Street analysts believe that Monsanto
has bet its future on genetically-engineered farm and food
products, and that failure of rBGH could damage the company
significantly.  Monsanto has reportedly spent $300 million since
1984 developing the rBGH hormone.  According to Consumers Union,
rBGH should earn Monsanto $300 to $500 million annually in the
U.S., and $1 billion each year worldwide.[8]

Both the food and pharmaceuticals industries are reportedly very
worried that consumer rejection of rBGH in milk would dim the
future for all genetically engineered foods.[9]  According to
industry analysts, some 60 genetically-engineered food products
are scheduled for approval by FDA in the next few years.  For its
part, the Clinton administration is counting on genetic
engineering to give America a competitive advantage in the global
marketplace and thus boost the President's flagging prospects for

Monsanto is clearly aware of the Clinton Administration's
enthusiasm for genetically-engineered foods to boost the economy.
An internal company memo[7] dated Sept. 21, 1993, suggests that,
to persuade the Administration to allow rBGH onto the market, a
Monsanto lobbyist should "Let [USDA] Secretary Espy know that
companies like Monsanto will likely pull out of the agriculture
tech area if the Administration will not stand up to persons
like Senator Feingold [of Wisconsin, an opponent of rBGH use]."
Espy is now solidly on board promoting rBGH.

FDA Commissioner Kessler has also proven himself to be a loyal
soldier in the consumer wars.  He has consistently opposed giving
consumers a choice by labeling milk. He says things such as, "The
public can be confident that milk and meat from BST-treated cows
is safe to consume." (BST is Monsanto's name for rBGH.)  And,
"There is virtually no difference in milk from treated and
untreated cows."[10]

Unfortunately, a considerable body of scientific evidence from
the U.S., England and Europe indicates that Commissioner Kessler
is simply not telling the whole truth.  Substantial evidence
indicates that milk from rBGH-treated cows is very likely to

** more pus from infected cows' udders;
** more antibiotics given to cows to treat those infections;
** an "off" taste and shortened shelf life, because of the pus;
** perhaps higher fat content and lower protein content;
** more of a tumor-promoting chemical called IGF-I, which has
been implicated in cancers of the colon, smooth muscle, and

In return for accepting increased pus, more antibiotics, and a
tumor-promoting chemical in their glass of milk, what benefits
will consumer's get?

None at all. Zero.  Even FDA says there are no consumer benefits.
In fact, because the U.S. already produces a surplus of milk,
which is purchased by Uncle Sam, increasing milk production with
rBGH will COST the taxpayer an additional $200 million or more
each year, estimates Consumers Union.  That's family money pumped
into some chemical company's pocket.  That's who benefits.

[More on this developing scandal next week.]

To keep abreast of the growing anti-rBGH campaign and boycott,
stay in touch with the Pure Food Campaign [1130 17th Street,
N.W., Suite 630, Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 775-1132]
and with Food & Water [Rural Route 1, Box 114, Marshfield, VT
05658; telephone (802) 426-3700.]
    --Peter Montague

[1] Keith Schneider, "Lines Drawn in a War Over a Milk Hormone,"
NEW YORK TIMES March 9, 1994, pg. A12.
[2] "Statement of Michael Hansen, Ph.D, March 10, 1994," Consumer
Policy Institute, Consumers Union, [101 Truman Ave., Yonkers, NY
10703-1057; telephone (914) 378-2000].
[3] Michael Hansen, "Testimony Before the Joint Meeting of the
Food Advisory Committee & the Veterinary Medicine Advisory
Committee on Whether to Label Milk From rBGH-Treated Cows by
Michael K. Hansen, Ph.D.," May 6, 1993.  Available from: Consumer
Policy Institute, Consumers Union, 101 Truman Ave., Yonkers, NY
10703-1057.  Telephone (914) 378-2000.
[4] Keith Schneider, "F.D.A. Warns the Dairy Industry Not to
Label Milk Hormone-Free," NEW YORK TIMES February 8, 1994, pg.
[5] Schneider, note 1 above. In an interview with RHWN March 15,
Matt Bennett of King & Spaulding refused to discuss these
lawsuits, referring us to Tom McDermott at Monsanto in St. Louis,
whom we could not reach before our press deadline.
[6] "Two New Deputy Commissioners Named By Kessler," FDA TALK
PAPER [T91-38] (Rockville, Md.: Food and Drug Administration,
July 15, 1991). Available from Brad Stone at FDA Press Office;
phone (202) 205-4241.
[7] Virginia V. Weldon, "Coehlo Talking Points for Espy Dinner,"
a memo on Monsanto company letterhead dated Sept. 21, 1993.
INDUSTRY (Mount Vernon, N.Y.: Consumer Policy Institute/Consumers
Union, 1990), pg. 1.
[9] Kathleen Day, "Hormone Hubbub Hinders Program," WASHINGTON
POST March 15, 1994, pgs. D1, D5.
[10] "FDA Approves Monsanto's BGH, Consumer Groups Call Boycott,
Milk Industry Gears Up Ad Campaign," CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER
Nov. 15, 1993, pg. 4.
Descriptor terms: consumer protection; fda; usda; monsanto;
hormones; milk; food safety; eli lilly; upjohn co; american
cyanamid; consumers union; genetic engineering; biotechnology;
gene splicing; king & spaulding; david kessler, jr; michael
taylor; labeling; rtk; mike espy; antibiotics; cows; cattle;
dairy farming; pure food campaign; food & water; consumer policy
institute; bgh;


Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic
version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge
even though it costs our organization considerable time and money
to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service
free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution
(anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send
your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research
Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do
not send credit card information via E-mail. For further
information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F.
by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL.
       --Peter Montague, Editor


Review Rachel's listings from #1 to #614