Family Farmers Face GMO Goliath
Written for the University of North Texas, 2007
© Layne Tisdel Martin
If the world's most powerful genetic engineering company has its way, consumers won't know whether or not their milk contains the corporation's controversial bovine growth hormone. Monsanto Co. has renewed its battle against dairies that use labels showing their milk is free of synthetic hormones.
The multi-billion-dollar biotechnology firm is notorious for its patent-violation lawsuits against family farmers whose crops have been cross-pollinated with the corporation's genetically modified seeds.
In a formal complaint submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on April 3, Monsanto called hormone-free milk labeling "troublesome" and "deceptive." But dairies say they have a right to inform consumers of what is, or isn't, in their milk products.
Monsanto's recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH, also known as recombinant bovine somatotropin, or rBST) was developed by the company's scientists to increase milk production in cows by about 10 percent.
The animals naturally produce bovine somatotropin, which works with other hormones in their bodies to regulate the amount of milk they produce. Monsanto's artificially engineered rBGH / rBST, marketed under the trademark Posilac, is a synthetic version of that hormone.
An FDA spokesman would not comment on the agency's response to Monsanto's April 3 complaint, but the agency has reported in a statement that "This drug was only approved after FDA established that it is effective and safe. Effectiveness means that Posilac does what the company claims (increases milk production). Safety covers three main areas: safety of the food products to humans, safety to the target animal (the cow) and safety to the environment."
FDA approval of rBGH was a long and questionable process. Margaret Miller, one of Monsanto's top research directors who helped develop the hormone, prepared the safety report for FDA review. Just before the report was submitted, Miller left Monsanto to become director of the FDA department that approved the hormone four years later.
In 1994, Miller was investigated along with two other FDA employees who had formerly worked for Monsanto and had key roles in the rBGH approval and labeling process. The General Accounting Office cleared all three employees of the misconduct charges, saying they had no financial stake in the hormone's approval.
Studies published by both the Center for Food Safety and the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research have found that "cows treated with rBGH suffer a 50 percent greater incidence of lameness (leg and hoof problems), 25 percent more udder infections (mastitis), and serious reproductive problems including infertility, cystic ovaries, fetal loss and birth defects."
The massive doses of bovine antibiotics administered to animals suffering from these conditions can show up in their milk, possibly interfering with human resistance to disease. Cows treated with rBGH also produce higher levels of insulin growth factor-1 (IGF-1), which studies suggest may inhibit the human immune system's defenses against pre-cancerous cells. According to the Organic Consumer's Association (OCA), high levels of IGF-1 in humans who drink rBGH milk have been linked with breast, colon, prostate and other cancers.
In response to growing consumer concern about milk from rBGH-treated cows, many prominent grocery chains and restaurants have recently announced plans to go synthetic hormone-free. Publix, a large southern U.S. supermarket chain, announced that as of May 1, 2007, all of its private label brand milk will be rBGH-free. Starbucks, Safeway, Ben and Jerry's and Chipotle Mexican Grills have also recently declared they will not use milk from rBGH-treated cows.
Many entire countries have banned the synthetic hormone, including all 25 European Union nations, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Japan. Monsanto spokesman Andrew Burchett told the Chicago Tribune, "about a third of the dairy cows in the U.S. are in herds where farmers choose to use Posilac."
Borden, the largest of the dairies implicated in Monsanto's complaint to the FDA, is changing its label from "hormone-free" to "rBST-free." The manager of Borden's Dallas plant, Mike Woods, said the company includes the FDA-recommended disclaimer stating the FDA has found no difference between the milk from cows treated with rBST and the milk from those not treated with the hormone.
"The label is being changed because there are hormones in the milk which are naturally produced," Woods said. "But our milk is produced from cows not treated with rBST."
Woods did not say whether Borden considers the hormone a health risk.
"We prefer not to have it in the milk so people who think there is a problem can have a product that does not contain rBST," Woods said.
In 2003, Monsanto sued Oakhurst Dairy, a small family business based in Portland, Maine that labels its milk: "Our farmer's pledge: No artificial hormones." Monsanto claimed the labels were misleading customers to believe that milk produced by cows treated with rBGH was dangerous.
The two companies settled out of court, on mostly confidential terms that included Oakhurst's agreement to label the milk "no artificial hormones used" instead of "no artificial hormones." The dairy also agreed to include a disclosure clause on the label stating the FDA has found no significant difference in milks produced with or without the use of rBGH.
"We are still letting folks know that we do not use rBGH," said Althea Bennett, Oakhurst Dairy's director of customer relations. "Our farmers have never chosen to go that route. It's just a decision we made as a family business."
Other dairies are advised by an FDA guidance document to include the same disclosure clause on their hormone-free labels, but the recommendation does not have the force of law. In its complaint to the FDA, Monsanto claimed the disclosure clause "fails to communicate what it was intended to." The biotech firm wants all hormone-free labels banned.
According to Monsanto’s complaint, "FDA – at a minimum – needs to issue forceful communications reiterating its view that even potentially misleading implications can and must be avoided.”
But Center for Food Safety spokesman Charles Margulis says Monsanto has admitted the claims made by the dairies’ labels are true.
"It's a free speech issue," Margulis said. "They should have the legal right to tell consumers about their products. It's absurd for them to say farmers can't tell the truth about their products."
Monsanto representatives did not return phone calls requesting their comments.
Milk labels aren't Monsanto's only concern. Since the late 90's, the St. Louis-based multinational corporation continues regularly filing patent-violation lawsuits against small family farmers whose crops have been contaminated with the company's genetically-engineered seeds.
According to a 2005 report by the Center for Food Safety, Monsanto owns the patents for 90 percent of the world's genetically engineered crops. Because plants reproduce naturally as pollen and seeds are dispersed by wind, insects and birds, cross-pollination is virtually impossible to prevent.
"Because of Monsanto's patents, when any non-engineered crop becomes contaminated with patented traits, that crop effectively becomes the property of Monsanto," the CFS report states.
"The lawsuits are not well publicized," Margulis said. "There's often an injunction, so they're legally not allowed to come forward and talk about these cases. Ninety-nine percent of the time the farmer has to sign a settlement agreement that includes not talking about the case."
Though most farmers have settled out of court, some have chosen to go to trial. According to a 2005 CFS report, total recorded judgments awarded to Monsanto for lawsuits against farmers at that time totaled over $15.2 million.
Monsanto's own Technology Use Guide for farmers contracted to grow their seeds acknowledges that genetically engineered crops can be transplanted from one user's farm onto another piece of land through pollen movement by animals or seed remains inside rented farming equipment.
The guide says, "Since corn is a naturally cross-pollinated crop, a minimal amount of pollen movement (some of which can carry genetically improved traits) between neighboring fields is a well known and normal occurrence in corn seed or grain production."
But the firm argues that regardless of how the crop was spread, farmers without contracts are liable to pay the company for its patented seeds. Farmers say finding seed that has not been cross-pollinated by genetically engineered traits has become challenging.
The Union of Concerned Scientists conducted a cross-pollination study in which it tested traditional seed stocks of soy, corn and canola. The study found that at least 50 percent of the soy, 50 percent of the corn and 83 percent of the canola seeds had been contaminated with genetically engineered content.
The American Farm Bureau estimates farmers are losing $300 million each year because of European buyers' refusal to purchase genetically engineered corn from the U.S.
North Dakota farmer Tom Wiley told the Center for Food Safety: "Farmers are being sued for having genetically modified organisms on their property that they did not buy, do not want, will not use and cannot sell."
When the New York Times questioned Monsanto about the safety of its genetically engineered food products, director of corporate communications Phil Angell said the company should not be held responsible for the safety of its products.
"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food," Angell told reporters. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job."
Written for the University of North Texas, 2007
© Layne Tisdel Martin
If the world's most powerful genetic engineering company has its way, consumers won't know whether or not their milk contains the corporation's controversial bovine growth hormone. Monsanto Co. has renewed its battle against dairies that use labels showing their milk is free of synthetic hormones.
The multi-billion-dollar biotechnology firm is notorious for its patent-violation lawsuits against family farmers whose crops have been cross-pollinated with the corporation's genetically modified seeds.
In a formal complaint submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on April 3, Monsanto called hormone-free milk labeling "troublesome" and "deceptive." But dairies say they have a right to inform consumers of what is, or isn't, in their milk products.
Monsanto's recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH, also known as recombinant bovine somatotropin, or rBST) was developed by the company's scientists to increase milk production in cows by about 10 percent.
The animals naturally produce bovine somatotropin, which works with other hormones in their bodies to regulate the amount of milk they produce. Monsanto's artificially engineered rBGH / rBST, marketed under the trademark Posilac, is a synthetic version of that hormone.
An FDA spokesman would not comment on the agency's response to Monsanto's April 3 complaint, but the agency has reported in a statement that "This drug was only approved after FDA established that it is effective and safe. Effectiveness means that Posilac does what the company claims (increases milk production). Safety covers three main areas: safety of the food products to humans, safety to the target animal (the cow) and safety to the environment."
FDA approval of rBGH was a long and questionable process. Margaret Miller, one of Monsanto's top research directors who helped develop the hormone, prepared the safety report for FDA review. Just before the report was submitted, Miller left Monsanto to become director of the FDA department that approved the hormone four years later.
In 1994, Miller was investigated along with two other FDA employees who had formerly worked for Monsanto and had key roles in the rBGH approval and labeling process. The General Accounting Office cleared all three employees of the misconduct charges, saying they had no financial stake in the hormone's approval.
Studies published by both the Center for Food Safety and the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research have found that "cows treated with rBGH suffer a 50 percent greater incidence of lameness (leg and hoof problems), 25 percent more udder infections (mastitis), and serious reproductive problems including infertility, cystic ovaries, fetal loss and birth defects."
The massive doses of bovine antibiotics administered to animals suffering from these conditions can show up in their milk, possibly interfering with human resistance to disease. Cows treated with rBGH also produce higher levels of insulin growth factor-1 (IGF-1), which studies suggest may inhibit the human immune system's defenses against pre-cancerous cells. According to the Organic Consumer's Association (OCA), high levels of IGF-1 in humans who drink rBGH milk have been linked with breast, colon, prostate and other cancers.
In response to growing consumer concern about milk from rBGH-treated cows, many prominent grocery chains and restaurants have recently announced plans to go synthetic hormone-free. Publix, a large southern U.S. supermarket chain, announced that as of May 1, 2007, all of its private label brand milk will be rBGH-free. Starbucks, Safeway, Ben and Jerry's and Chipotle Mexican Grills have also recently declared they will not use milk from rBGH-treated cows.
Many entire countries have banned the synthetic hormone, including all 25 European Union nations, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Japan. Monsanto spokesman Andrew Burchett told the Chicago Tribune, "about a third of the dairy cows in the U.S. are in herds where farmers choose to use Posilac."
Borden, the largest of the dairies implicated in Monsanto's complaint to the FDA, is changing its label from "hormone-free" to "rBST-free." The manager of Borden's Dallas plant, Mike Woods, said the company includes the FDA-recommended disclaimer stating the FDA has found no difference between the milk from cows treated with rBST and the milk from those not treated with the hormone.
"The label is being changed because there are hormones in the milk which are naturally produced," Woods said. "But our milk is produced from cows not treated with rBST."
Woods did not say whether Borden considers the hormone a health risk.
"We prefer not to have it in the milk so people who think there is a problem can have a product that does not contain rBST," Woods said.
In 2003, Monsanto sued Oakhurst Dairy, a small family business based in Portland, Maine that labels its milk: "Our farmer's pledge: No artificial hormones." Monsanto claimed the labels were misleading customers to believe that milk produced by cows treated with rBGH was dangerous.
The two companies settled out of court, on mostly confidential terms that included Oakhurst's agreement to label the milk "no artificial hormones used" instead of "no artificial hormones." The dairy also agreed to include a disclosure clause on the label stating the FDA has found no significant difference in milks produced with or without the use of rBGH.
"We are still letting folks know that we do not use rBGH," said Althea Bennett, Oakhurst Dairy's director of customer relations. "Our farmers have never chosen to go that route. It's just a decision we made as a family business."
Other dairies are advised by an FDA guidance document to include the same disclosure clause on their hormone-free labels, but the recommendation does not have the force of law. In its complaint to the FDA, Monsanto claimed the disclosure clause "fails to communicate what it was intended to." The biotech firm wants all hormone-free labels banned.
According to Monsanto’s complaint, "FDA – at a minimum – needs to issue forceful communications reiterating its view that even potentially misleading implications can and must be avoided.”
But Center for Food Safety spokesman Charles Margulis says Monsanto has admitted the claims made by the dairies’ labels are true.
"It's a free speech issue," Margulis said. "They should have the legal right to tell consumers about their products. It's absurd for them to say farmers can't tell the truth about their products."
Monsanto representatives did not return phone calls requesting their comments.
Milk labels aren't Monsanto's only concern. Since the late 90's, the St. Louis-based multinational corporation continues regularly filing patent-violation lawsuits against small family farmers whose crops have been contaminated with the company's genetically-engineered seeds.
According to a 2005 report by the Center for Food Safety, Monsanto owns the patents for 90 percent of the world's genetically engineered crops. Because plants reproduce naturally as pollen and seeds are dispersed by wind, insects and birds, cross-pollination is virtually impossible to prevent.
"Because of Monsanto's patents, when any non-engineered crop becomes contaminated with patented traits, that crop effectively becomes the property of Monsanto," the CFS report states.
"The lawsuits are not well publicized," Margulis said. "There's often an injunction, so they're legally not allowed to come forward and talk about these cases. Ninety-nine percent of the time the farmer has to sign a settlement agreement that includes not talking about the case."
Though most farmers have settled out of court, some have chosen to go to trial. According to a 2005 CFS report, total recorded judgments awarded to Monsanto for lawsuits against farmers at that time totaled over $15.2 million.
Monsanto's own Technology Use Guide for farmers contracted to grow their seeds acknowledges that genetically engineered crops can be transplanted from one user's farm onto another piece of land through pollen movement by animals or seed remains inside rented farming equipment.
The guide says, "Since corn is a naturally cross-pollinated crop, a minimal amount of pollen movement (some of which can carry genetically improved traits) between neighboring fields is a well known and normal occurrence in corn seed or grain production."
But the firm argues that regardless of how the crop was spread, farmers without contracts are liable to pay the company for its patented seeds. Farmers say finding seed that has not been cross-pollinated by genetically engineered traits has become challenging.
The Union of Concerned Scientists conducted a cross-pollination study in which it tested traditional seed stocks of soy, corn and canola. The study found that at least 50 percent of the soy, 50 percent of the corn and 83 percent of the canola seeds had been contaminated with genetically engineered content.
The American Farm Bureau estimates farmers are losing $300 million each year because of European buyers' refusal to purchase genetically engineered corn from the U.S.
North Dakota farmer Tom Wiley told the Center for Food Safety: "Farmers are being sued for having genetically modified organisms on their property that they did not buy, do not want, will not use and cannot sell."
When the New York Times questioned Monsanto about the safety of its genetically engineered food products, director of corporate communications Phil Angell said the company should not be held responsible for the safety of its products.
"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food," Angell told reporters. "Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job."
