Sign the Petition:
Search OCA:
Get Local!

Find Local News, Events & Green Businesses on OCA's State Pages:

OCA News Sections

Organic Consumers Association

A Decade of Consumer Pressure Is Driving Monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone off the Market

  • Monsanto Dairy Hormone Division For Sale Amid Consumer Concerns
    By Jane Akre
    Injury Board, August 6, 2008
    Straight to the Source

WEB EDITOR'S NOTE: Consumer Victory! After 5 years of declining sales and several legal setbacks, Monsanto has finally decided to dump rBGH! Thanks to consumer pressure, major retailers, dairies, and cafes, from Kroger to Starbucks, have commited to sourcing milk from rBGH-free cows.

Several countries, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, and the European Union have banned rbGH because of its impacts on human and animal health.

OCA's "Millions Against Monsanto" campaign has generated over a quarter million emails and petition signatures on the topic of rBGH, helping make rBGH one of the most controversial food products in the world.

While it is not clear who, if anyone, will buy Monsanto's posilac division, it is obvious that the voice of organic consumers has been heard. Stay tuned!
*******************

Monsanto announces its selling its posilac division that makes bovine growth hormone.

St. Louis-based Monsanto announced today it is selling the division that produces bovine growth hormone, also known as rBGH or rBST.

There's no problem with the product, insists the company. During a conference call today, Monsanto's Chrissie Chavis told reporters that Posilac, as it's known commercially, is a "solid successful product of significant value to dairy farmers."

But nationwide a growing number of consumers and dairy processors feel otherwise. "No artificial growth hormones used" is now commonly displayed on store shelves from Florida to California.

The proposed sale, she said, allows the company to focus on genetically engineered seed. "Our long term growth platform is focused on corn, soybeans, cotton and vegetables. Repositioning the business would ensure that loyal dairy farmers could continue to receive the value of Posilac in their operations."

Posilac, is sold in an injectable form to an unknown number of dairy farmers in the U.S. and internationally. Monsanto refused to divulge sales figures, but insists that one-third of the nation's cows receive injections. The USDA estimate that number to be more in the range of 15 percent.

The dairy drug is now made at the company's Augusta, Georgia plant after production problems at its Austrian facility forced it to close earlier this year.

The sale would include the Augusta, Georgia plant facility. In the meantime it's "business as usual," said Chavis about whether operations there would cease.

Monsanto has no timeline for the sale and would not comment to *IB News* on any prospective buyers, though Chavis says the product could complement animal production or pharmaceutical companies.

Consumer surveys show that over the last decade, consumers have rejected buying milk from artificial hormone treated cows.

In the last several years, major retailers such as Safeway, Publix and Kroger have decided to ban the artificial hormone in their store-brand milk. Starbucks has refused to purchase dairy from treated cows at its 6,793 company-operated stores. Chipotle Mexican Grill, a McDonalds spinoff, has banned rBST in its company stores.

In January, Kraft Foods announced it would offer a line of cheese made with rBGH-free milk, despite assurances from the FDA that it is safe. Glanbia, a high-volume cheese production company in Idaho and New Mexico, will phase out the use of Posilac by next year. Dean Foods, the largest U.S. dairy company now offers a line of rBST-free products.

Recently agriculture officials around the country moved to limit labels on dairy products that disclosed whether they came from treated or untreated cows. In February, consumer pressure led to a reversal of a labeling prohibition in Pennsylvania.

Has pressure from consumers led to Monsanto's decision? Chavis denies it. "Our core focus is in the seeds and trace business. Since 1994 it's (Posilac) been a very strong product for us. We've sold more doses this year than we sold last year. We see significant opportunity in the future in the U.S. as well as the international markets."

The company plans to continue sales outside of the country, particularly Mexico and Brazil.

rBGH is approved for use in 20 countries, says the Monsanto spokesperson, although it is banned in all of Europe, Japan, Australia and other industrialized countries, with the exception of the U.S.

rBGH was approved by the FDA in November 1993 and marketed in February 1994. Studies show that milk from treated cows has an increased level of a spinoff hormone, IGF-1, which causes the cow to produce more milk. IGF-1 is identical in cows and humans, and studies show that it causes cells to proliferate, including cancerous cells.

The Cancer Prevention Coalition's Dr. Sam Epstein says that the IGF-1 from rBGH treated milk is "supercharged" and can lead to an increased number of cancers in humans. Consumers Union cites that elevated mastitis rates among treated cows leads to additional antibiotic treatment in the animal. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics "may pass into humans through milk, air, water or soil, or through ground meat", says Michael Hansen, a senior scientist with CU.

Terry Etherton, at Penn State University, says the growth of rBGH-free products is "part of a smoke-and-mirrors campaign" that means consumers are paying more for products of questionable value.

Chavis positioned the new face of Posilac as a "green" alternative for farmers. Studies at Cornell University, where Monsanto has funded dairy scientist Dale Bauman and his studies since the 1990s, show that the drug allows big savings in terms of feed and land.

"As the environmental pressure on agriculture gets greater, this allows dairy producers to produce more milk with less (sic) cows thereby reducing the overall carbon footprint of milk production," said Chavis.

Posilac was the first in a long line of genetically engineered products to be introduced by Monsanto, a former chemical company. Monsanto is increasingly focusing on buying seed companies and converting the industry to its own brand of genetically engineered seeds, where qualities of foreign plants or plants and animals are merged to create seeds that can be patented. The company then charges a premium for the seeds and requires farmers internationally to sign user contracts.

More than half of the U.S. soybeans and corn that make up roughly 70 percent of pre-packages grocery store items come from genetically engineered ingredients.

Recently, rBGH has been tested on catfish and tilapia to increase growth.

For more information on this topic or related issues you can search the thousands of archived articles on the OCA website using keywords:

susiparisienne
post Aug 13 2008, 04:01 PM



This is great news-- but who would be stupid enough to buy this company?

This has got to be one of the lamest things I've ever read about the benefits of rBGH:
"As the environmental pressure on agriculture gets greater, this allows dairy producers to produce more milk with less (sic) cows thereby reducing the overall carbon footprint of milk production," said Chavis."

...only proving that the "green" concept is being further highjacked by one of the worst companies ever. What a joke! If people would only embrace the truth and use their God-given intelligence, we wouldn't have such preposterous companies as Monsanto, Wal-Mart or McDonalds... and the list goes on.

Bravo--at least the word is getting out. It's all about education, and consumers refusing to buy and consume garbage. How about a public service announcement on television for TV-viewers, that milk is meant to be drunk fresh and raw from a happy, healthy, untainted cow? As nature intended it. That would be my dream. Just have to get the FDA and the industrial pasteurized dairy industry out of the way--and that's far from easy at this time.

Cheers.

nutritiousmeal
post Aug 13 2008, 06:37 PM


Even if this section of the company is spin-off, won't the new spin-off company just keep selling the rBGH/rBST in its place? How does this change anything?

radicalmom
post Yesterday, 04:20 AM


exactly!!!! i'm waiting to find out who the buyer is!!!!! maybe i'll google it, eh? wouldn't surprise me if it's one of the usual suspects. like the way they changed the name of the school of the americas..

dairydiva
post Yesterday, 10:16 AM


Whoever buys it, be sure you don't have stocks invested in it.

However---I will bring the topic of discussion, that will rbST more milk is produced from less cows (thats where the environmental impact comes in). Also, if every person wanted fresh, raw milk from pastured cows, that would take a lot of land and at least in the east, land is not easy to come buy (let alone the amount it costs!).

madame7
post Today, 12:26 PM


As nature intended? Well truthfully, nature intended for cows' milk to be ingested by calves, not humans. So therein lies the big picture, that dairy products are inherently not fit for human consumption.

What makes them more tolerable for humans is for that milk to be ingested in its natural state, as mentioned, fresh and raw. Now that we have seen the result of consumer pressure to keep artificial hormones out of cows' milk, the next task is speaking up for our right to milk that has not been treated in any way. This will be a huge challenge--the only way to get milk like this is directly from the farmers who produce in small batches and can sell the fresh milk immediately. The dairy industry is not going to like that at all and will fight to keep customers buying their mass-produced, corporate-greed milk.

The best we can do is to continue lobbying for CHOICES in our food supply. Some of us know better than others how to feed ourselves for optimum health, and we need to protect our right to choose products that support our well-being.

madame7
post Today, 12:33 PM


and to add a comment about the resources required to produce fresh, raw milk for everyone:

What i was getting at in my other post is that we are not meant to be eating as much dairy as we do. I personally believe we were not designed to be eating cows' milk at all, but since we are, we need to take a good look at what percentage of the American diet revolves around dairy. The industry has gotten huge and so have Americans! If every US citizen limited their dairy consumption to 5% of their diet, not only would it be possible to support this level of consumption with traditional farming practices, but the rates of illness and disease would drop sharply.

We live in a nation of greed and gluttony, as evidenced by the corporations that influence the government, as well as our waistlines.