Monsanto Wants Feds to Silence Dairies

[nosmokes]

after all the big california dairies decided to get rid of posilac, the brand name of monsanto's rBST and put on their labels that the milk is from rBST free cows, somebody got skeered. now monsanto is having a cow.
--###--

original-consumer affairs

Monsanto Wants Feds to Silence Dairies

No Need to Eliminate Growth Hormones, Chemical Giant Argues








April 4, 2007
Monsanto, the giant chemical company, wants Big Brother to protect it from those bullies that hang around the dairy barns.

The problem, to hear Monsanto tell it, is that dairies such as New England's Hood and California's Alta Dena are making a big deal about how their milk comes from cows that haven't been treated with an artificial growth hormone made by Monsanto.

The hormone -- recombinant bovine somatotropin -- or rBST -- was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1993. But many parents fear the substance can cause cancer, premature development or other conditions in children. Some European countries prohibit using the chemical.

Farmers like the chemical additive because it causes cows to produce about ten percent more milk.
~snip~

.
.
.
complete article here

[depakid]

1. They tried to do this in Oregon

sent in their big guns and lost.

Monsanto is the poster child for some form of corporate death penalty.

[smaug]

11. Why, that's why they're [Monsanto] are going to the Feds!

Their big buds in the Bushevik regime will help them in their war against healthy milk </snark>.

[Pastiche423]

52. Is that all of Oregon?

I am a milkaholic and buy Cascade milk (out of Roseburg).

[depakid]

55. It was specifically the Tillamook Coop

See:

Tillamook Creams Monsanto

http://www.wweek.com/editorial/3117/6041/

[mopinko]

81. no wonder costco sells their cheese.

loves me some costco.

[walldude]

2. Oh man, that is so Neo-Con playbook it's not funny

It's not the fact that they are putting this shit in their milk, it's the fact that someone is telling people about it

Kind of like, "it's not the fact that we don't supply proper training, body armor, leave time and health care for the soldiers that is demoralizing the troops, it's the fact that the Democrats keep talking about it"

[Redstone]

3. Monsanto is pure, unalloyed, fucking EVIL. Satan come to Earth in the form of a corporation.

Redstone

[Fridays Child]

6. For anyone who's interested...

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm

[robinlynne]

8. agreed. Companies like this simply need to be shut down for the good of humanity.

[loudsue]

20. Amen! But they do us the favor of calling attention to how AWFUL some corporations

really are. Monsanto is like the big WART on the end of the corporate nose...it's so big and so out front, nobody can ignore how heinous it is. Monsanto is the poison maker, ecology wrecker of the world, and it has all these "rights", and bought-off politicians to where it trumps EVERYONE in the world.

THAT has to stop, if ANY of us are going to survive. Monsanto has proven that they are trying to corner the market on ALL agriculture in the world, by creating seeds that won't reproduce new plants. That way, only Monsanto can sell you seeds, if the world wants to eat. THAT IS FUCKING CRIMINAL!!!

We need to bring this monster down, hard. Now.

:kick::kick::kick:

[Joe Chi Minh]

13. I seem to remember its CEO scoffing that people talked about him as if he

was the devil incarnate; which, of course, is precisely what the devil incarnate would say.

[Fridays Child]

4. So, Monsanto wants to criminalize statements of fact.

If the carton says nothing more than that the milk is rBGH-free, that should be illegal in Monsanto's eyes? I wonder how the Republicks feel about corporate regulation, in this case. If they're true to form, they'll side with Monsanto.

[Jcrowley]

5. Remember this?

Secret Canadian Govt. Study

Reveals Serious Faults With BGH Research;

FDA Approval Was Based on Faulty Conclusion?

By STEVE WILSON

A secret study by five senior Health Canada scientists concludes important gaps in scientific procedures and data have left legitimate human health concerns about Bovine Growth Hormone unresolved despite the drug's approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The report was written after staff scientists reviewing data submitted by Monsanto Canada complained they were being strongly pressured to approve the drug despite their serious misgivings. A Canadian Senate committee studying BGH safety issues was never given the April 21 report, nor was it ever released publicly.

A leaked copy of the document is now available on the web at http://www.nfu.ca/gapsreport.html. It's findings are considered "explosive" by scientists who have been following the BGH issue for years.

At the heart of the report is a finding that FDA scientists misreported the results of a key test for human safety before they approved the drug in the U.S. in 1993.

Writing in the journal Science in 1990, FDA scientists reviewing Monsanto data said, "no toxicological effects (from BGH) were found (in test rats)." The Canadian scientists say that report was false. Actually, 20 to 30% of the rats developed primary antibody responses to rBGH and some developed throid cysts and infiltration in the prostate. The Canadian report says those results "should have prompted the need for long-term studies.

http://foxbghsuit.com/jasw1007.htm

rBST (NUTRILAC) "GAPS ANALYSIS" REPORT
By
rBST INTERNAL REVIEW TEAM

Health Protection Branch, Health Canada
April 21, 1998

<snip>

Additional rBST Material Submitted to JECFA

Vol. 1: addendum I of the EC's BST position paper

Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAQ in 1997 suggested that the scientific data analysis for rBST should be more restrictive as the compound in question doesn't improve herd health but is used for an economic benefit; cite possible concerns re. increased risk of bacterial and viral infections and antibiotic residues in milk (no mention of antibiotic resistance aspect), subtle milk compositional changes and target animal safety (reproductive effects, mammary infections and possible immune system effects).

1. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) report (Hormones, Growth Hormones, Immunity and Retroviral Infections); summarizes bibliography on the subject between 1994 and 1997 (previous report on similar topics had been produced by the same institute in 1993).

The report described general effects of growth hormone on the immune system, growth hormone observations (immune and reproduction) in transgenic mice (bGH gene), growth hormone and effects on prion proteins and lentiviral infections. All experimental data was either based on in vitro observations, endogenously produced bGH (transgenic) or non-oral exposure routes. The main points include:

rhGH increases phagocytic activity when administered to GH-deficient humans however the biological significance of this is unknown; in general, GH appears to suppress humoral immunity responses but stimulate cell-mediated immune responses;
PrP (prion protein) expression in vitro can be regulated by a variety of growth factors, including rhGH, dexamethasone, NGF and IGF-I; concentrations required for increased PrP mRNA detection's are 10 ppm for rhGH and 100 ppb for IGF-I;

http://www.nfu.ca/gapsreport.html

[WiseButAngrySara]

7. From what I've read, Monsanto is awful and not to be

trusted, but there is no harm in somatotropin, as this is a huge protein that is degraded in the stomach or in processing of milk (about 200 amino acids) and it's not likely to ever be ingested by children or adults. The bigger concern are hormones, which are not always destroyed and may retain biological activity.

[Jcrowley]

12. Go here

http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/index.cfm?St=4

T. B. Mepham and others, "Safety of milk from cows treated with bovine somatotropin," LANCET Vol. 344 (November 19, 1994), pgs. 1445- 1446.


And here:

Even the FDA admits, “rbGH treatment produces an increase in the concentration of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) in cow's milk.”<11> While some supporters of rbGH acknowledge that “it at least doubles the amount of IGF-1 hormone in the milk,” the first study on the subject reported an increase of 360 percent. <12,13> Whatever the amount, IGF-1 in milk is not destroyed by pasteurization, nor is it destroyed in the stomach. Rather, it is absorbed intact, and could have a significant impact. A study that looked at data from more than a thousand nurses who carefully recorded their diet found that the food most associated with high IGF-1 levels was milk. The study's author said, “This association raises the possibility that diet could increase cancer risk by increasing levels of IGF-1 in the blood stream.”<14> The milk used in the latter study was from cows not treated with rbGH. Milk from treated cows has higher levels of IGF-1 and might raise human IGF-1 levels even more.

http://www.gene-watch.org/genewatch/articles/18-3Smith.html

[WiseButAngrySara]

31. Ah thank you. I was unaware of this but should have

been suspicious.

[kestrel91316]

28. I'm not worried about ingesting BGH in milk. I object to how it harms the

cows, and causes increased risk of antibiotic residues (doctors never did figure out how I became deathly allergic to sulfa drugs....but I blame the milk). I also want to promote organic practices.

I want to be able to make an informed decision on who I buy milk from, and I DO NOT want to buy milk from a farmer who uses BGH in his cows.

Knowledge is power, and boy does Monsanto fear consumer decision-making power.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. What does BGH have to do with antibiotics?

OK, maybe if BGH causes udder problems leading to infections, which lead to abuse of antibiotics, OK.

But they're two seperate issue.

[Jcrowley]

35. False

The issues are very connected. But please refute what I am about to say and get first hand information from dairy farmers.

Now of course many dairy farmers who do not use BGH also use antibiotics but those farmers who do use BGH have experienced an increase in the need for antibiotics and other treatments. Mastitis is a big issue here. There are others.

BGH is a scam. It has no use, no purpose at all.

Do you know how much milk is dumped daily in America?

[Horse with no Name]

48. I grew up on a dairy farm

My Dad was an honest farmer. NOTHING went into our milk--no extra water, nothing.
In fact, our milk went straight to Yoplait because of the high butterfat and quality. We used to get free cases of yogurt.
The process used to be that everytime the truck came and picked up the milk, they took a sample (this was 26-27 years ago). If your milk was found to have ANY foreign substance in it, you were charged the cost of dumping the entire tank truck.
My mom caught the driver once taking multiple samples out of our tank. Apparently, the driver was taking kickbacks from other farmers who cheated and milked their cows into the tank that were on medication or added extra water to their tank (milk is sold by the pound).
People always find ways around the regulations. It is hard to trust the food supply when you see stuff like this.
I don't think that it is by accident that our children are fatter and bigger than they used to be.
Is it an accident that it used to be wearing a size 10 shoe was abnormal but it is now considered normal.
There is really no telling what is in the food we eat.

[kestrel91316]

39. Cows being given BGH are MUCh more prone to mastitis, IIRC,

which is going to lead to more antibiotic use and increased risk of ILLEGAL residues in milk. FDA (or is it USDA??) finds illegal antibiotic residues in milk ALL THE TIME.

[truedelphi]

54. Some farmers have also said that they had to put down

A higher number of cows (one farmer said something like 20%) because of the damage that the bovine growth hormone caused.

If the cows producing the milk are not healthy, it is much harder for me to feel good about drinking the product the cows produce.

[WiseButAngrySara]

38. Wow! Have I become educated, and knowledge is power

that Monsanto and others fear. I had no idea what you meant by antibiotic residues, so I googled it, and it is a fascinating and frightening subject that I can't believe has completely slipped by my radar screen (maybe because I don't have young children drinking milk, nor am I a milk consumer). A book was published on this as early as 1980!

Since the major concerns are resistence to antibiotics and allergic reactions, it is likely IMO, that your Sulfa allergy was due to milk that contained residues. Do you use Sulfa drugs in your Vet practice? Could you have been exposed and sensitized in that way?

A complete surprise to me (and one that I intend to research more) is that this also is a problem with honey! Why are honeybees being exposed to antibiotics? Do they even have an immune system? Certainly they don't form antibodies, but antibiotics have been routinely found in honey. I've read so many recent posts about the decline in honeybees that I'm wondering if this is somehow related. Who knows!

I object to any harm done to animals, so I concur with your concern about the effect it has on the health of cows.

Links on Antibiotic Residues:
http://www.google.com/search?q=antibiotic+residues+&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext/INF-DA/INF-DA_AntibioticResidues.html
http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/foodsci/ext/pubs/antibioticresidues.html
http://nyschap.vet.cornell.edu/module/mastitis/section4/Residue%20Avoidance.pdf
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about/committees/expert/eagar/armrl.htm
http://www.apimondia.org/apiacta/articles/2005/michaud_1.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1829926.stm
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309030447/html/
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=21&page=301

[kestrel91316]

40. I doubt that skin contact with trace amounts of sulfa drugs in daily

practice would lead to hypersensitivity. Ingestion is the likely route.

The first and only time I was ever prescribed sulfa drugs (for a GI problem) they nearly killed me. I spent the weekend of the Chernobyl disaster in the ER and hospital, lol. A very bad weekend on several counts.

[Jcrowley]

45. Here ya' go

http://entomology.unl.edu/ent801/humimm.html

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?s=3817f9f4c8acc65c18e24408cf6f9aa9&showtopic=13797&st=0&#entry194260

:hi:

[WiseButAngrySara]

53. Oh, thanks again!

STILL OTHER ANTIBACTERIAL PROTEINS



Antibacterial proteins widely occur in vertebrate and invertebrate animals. It is not too surprizing, then, to learn that representatives of various insect orders produce different antibactieral proteins. The attacins and cecropins are known mostly from lepidopterans, although they have been detected in other insects and even in intestine of pigs.

Honeybees produce another family of such proteins that are known as apidaecins. These are small peptides, molecular weight about 2100. Apidaecins do not appear to disturb bacterial membranes, and it is not yet clear how they do work. It is speculated that these are bacteriostatic, rather than bacteriocidal, proteins. Royalisin is another antibacterial peptide is found in the royal jelly of honeybees. This is also an amphipathic protein, and its mode of action may be similar to cecropins. It is a small molecule, molecular weight estimated at 5523.

Dipterans also produce induced antibacterial proteins. Two peptides from Phormia are called defensin and diptericin. Another dipteran peptide is a male-specific antibacterial product from Drosophila melanogaster. This peptide is known as andropin, and it thought to protect seminal fluid and the male reproductive tract against microbial infections.

One of the most exciting findings in insect immunology is the discovery of an insect immune protein called hemolin. This protein belongs to the immunoglobulin superfamily, that is, it shares sequence homologies to mammalian immunoglobulins. It is thought that this protein is one of the first proteins to appear in the hemolymph of the giant silkmoth H. cecropia. This protein binds to the surface of bacteria, and it is likely that the binding may be the first step in the insect immune response.

:hi:

[Jcrowley]

9. Milk Safety

The position of Monsanto, and of the dairy conglomerates using rBGH, are different. Monsanto's public position since 1994 has been that IGF- 1 is not elevated in the milk from rBGH-treated cows. For example, writing in the British journal, LANCET, in 1994, Monsanto researchers said "...IGF-1 concentration in milk of rBST-treated cows is unchanged," and "...there is no evidence that hormonal content of milk from rBST-treated cows is in any way different from cows not so treated."<7> However, in a published letter, the British researcher T. B. Mepham reminded Monsanto that in its 1993 application to the British government for permission to sell rBGH in England, Monsanto itself reported that "the IGF-1 level went up substantially ."<8> The U.S. FDA acknowledges that IGF-1 is elevated in milk from rBGH-treated cows.<4> Other proponents of rBGH acknowledge that it at least doubles the amount of IGF-1 hormone in the milk.<9> The earliest report in the literature found that IGF-1 was elevated in the milk of rBGH-treated cows by a factor of 3.6.<10> No one besides Monsanto seems to argue that rBGH treatment of cows has no effect on IGF-1 levels in their milk.

The dairy conglomerates --Land O' Lakes and Cabot Creamery -- acknowledge that IGF-1 is elevated in their milk. However, they argue that it doesn't matter. They point out (correctly) that human saliva has IGF-1 in it, and they argue that that doesn't matter either because IGF-1 is broken down during digestion.

A new study published this month shows this to be wrong. IGF-1 by itself in saliva is destroyed by digestion, but IGF-1 in the presence of casein (the principal protein in cows' milk) is not destroyed by the digestive system.<11> Casein has a protective effect on IGF-1, so IGF-1 in cows milk remains intact in the gut of humans who drink rBGH-treated milk. There was reason to believe that this might be true because researchers in 1984 had shown that another growth hormone, Epidermal Growth Factor (EGF), in the presence of casein was not degraded by the digestive system.<12> However, proof had been lacking for IGF-1 until now.

So the saliva argument has been invalidated by scientific experiment. The question then becomes, what are the likely effects of IGF-1 in contact with cells of the human gastrointestinal tract? THIS IS THE QUESTION THE NIH SAID NEEDED ANSWERING BACK IN 1991. Now there are at least three relevant studies.

http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/index.cfm?St=4

[NashVegas]

60. Cabot Farmers Use rBGH?

That's so disappointing.

[gravity]

10. BST is in all milk

The only difference from that and rBST is the source of the protein, but when it comes down to it, they are exactly the same molecules.

A scientists can't tell the difference between milk from organic and conventional milk because they are the same thing. Milk is milk.

[Jcrowley]

22. Not even the FDA backs that nonsense

Even the FDA admits, “rbGH treatment produces an increase in the concentration of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) in cow's milk.”<11> While some supporters of rbGH acknowledge that “it at least doubles the amount of IGF-1 hormone in the milk,” the first study on the subject reported an increase of 360 percent. <12,13> Whatever the amount, IGF-1 in milk is not destroyed by pasteurization, nor is it destroyed in the stomach. Rather, it is absorbed intact, and could have a significant impact. A study that looked at data from more than a thousand nurses who carefully recorded their diet found that the food most associated with high IGF-1 levels was milk. The study's author said, “This association raises the possibility that diet could increase cancer risk by increasing levels of IGF-1 in the blood stream.”<14> The milk used in the latter study was from cows not treated with rbGH. Milk from treated cows has higher levels of IGF-1 and might raise human IGF-1 levels even more.

http://www.gene-watch.org/genewatch/articles/18-3Smith.html

The position of Monsanto, and of the dairy conglomerates using rBGH, are different. Monsanto's public position since 1994 has been that IGF-1 is not elevated in the milk from rBGH-treated cows. For example, writing in the British journal, LANCET, in 1994, Monsanto researchers said "...IGF-1 concentration in milk of rBST-treated cows is unchanged," and "...there is no evidence that hormonal content of milk from rBST-treated cows is in any way different from cows not so treated." <7> However, in a published letter, the British researcher T. B. Mepham reminded Monsanto that in its 1993 application to the British government for permission to sell rBGH in England, Monsanto itself reported that "the IGF-1 level went up substantially ." <8> The U.S. FDA acknowledges that IGF-1 is elevated in milk from rBGH-treated cows. <4> Other proponents of rBGH acknowledge that it at least doubles the amount of IGF-1 hormone in the milk. <9> The earliest report in the literature found that IGF-1 was elevated in the milk of rBGH-treated cows by a factor of 3.6. <10> No one besides Monsanto seems to argue that rBGH treatment of cows has no effect on IGF-1 levels in their milk.

http://www.ejnet.org/rachel/rehw454.htm

<9> William H. Daughaday and David M. Barbano, "Bovine somatotropin supplementation of dairy cows: is the milk safe?" JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Vol. 264, No. 8 (August 22, 1990), pgs. 1003-1005.

When a cow is injected with rBGH, its presence in the blood stimulates production of another hormone, called Insulin-Like Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1), a naturally-occurring hormone-protein in both cows and humans. The use of rBGH increases the levels of IGF-1 in the cow's milk. Because IGF-1 is active in humans - causing cells to divide - some scientists believe that ingesting high levels of it in rBGH-treated milk could lead to uncontrolled cell division and growth in humans - in other words, cancer.(10)

Monsanto have naturally been keen to deny that IGF-1 levels in rBGH treated milk could be high enough to pose a threat. Writing in The Lancet in 1994, the company's researchers claimed that "there is no evidence that hormonal content of milk from rBST treated cows is in any way different from cows not so treated."(11) Yet in a later issue of the same journal, a British researcher pointed out that Monsanto had admitted, in 1993, that "the IGF-1 level went up substantially " when rBGH was used.(12)

http://www.orpheusweb.co.uk/john.rose/rbgh.html

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

65. Gravity's right.

Here's what the FDA actually said:

http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CVM_Updates/cpetup.html

[gravity]

73. Thanks for the source

I remeber reading it somewhere, but I forgot where.

"FDA has previously maintained and continues to maintain that levels of IGF-I in milk, whether or not from rbGH supplemented cows, are not significant when evaluated against levels of IGF-I endogenously produced and present in humans. IGF-I is normally found in human plasma at concentrations much higher than those found in cow's milk. Reported percentage increases in IGF-I concentrations in milk of rbGH supplemented cows can be misleading because the levels of IGF-I in milk are so low prior to any increase. IGF-I is a normal, but highly variable, constituent of bovine milk with the concentration depending on the animal's stage of lactation, nutritional status, and age. While some studies indicate that levels of IGF-I may statistically increase in the milk of rbGH supplemented cows relative to unsupplemented cows, reported increases are still within the normal variation of IGF-I levels in milk. The Agency pointed out that even if all of the IGF-I in milk was absorbed, and there is insufficient evidence that it would be, the levels of IGF-I in human plasma would not rise by 1%."

http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CVM_Updates/cpetup.html

[AikidoSoul]

49. Do you work for Monsanto? Or Pfizer (owns Monsanto)? Or maybe

Pharmacia -- one of the international holding companies that used to own Monsanto but was also purchased by Pfizer?

I've seen your comments on some of these threads and there is a pattern. They are shallow, ad hominem, aggressive, hateful, accusatory, and divisive.

People like you are often underpaid industry flaks sent to haunt these threads to cause mischief. My recommendation is for everyone to answer each of this person's emails with the words.

"IGNORE THIS PERSON HE IS POSSIBLY AN INDUSTRY FLAK AND WILL WASTE YOUR TIME WITH UNSUBSTANTIATED INDUSTRY FLAVORED NONSENSE"

Meanwhile.... the rest of us are attempting to have a real debate -- so buzz off!

[NickB79]

78. Call the Kettle black much, Pot?

"I've seen your comments on some of these threads and there is a pattern. They are shallow, ad hominem, aggressive, hateful, accusatory, and divisive."

Yet you are the one accusing the poster of being a shill paid by Monsanto with no evidence whatsoever to support that claim. Then you tell the poster, who said nothing offensive or untrue in the previous post, to buzz off.

Talk about shallow, ad hominem, hateful, and accusatory comments.

[AikidoSoul]

85. You're right, and I apologize to everyone concerned. I was in the worst mood and had zero patience

...not a very good way to engage in a discussion. x(

What I had noticed repeatedly and then knee-jerked my own response, was that the poster makes the same types of comments that I see coming from industry flaks and PR firms -- when they can be identified. Since I participate in scientific and chemical injury forums, many of us have had to deal with identifiying and removing industry PR people that attempt to destroy the process of exchanging real, ongoing, documented information.

Here at DU, when I see threads with comments that use industry language and arguments, I can't help wondering if it's not happening here. It is not unusual you know for PR firms to hire bloggers to do this kind of thing. Mostly the flaks setup email notices from GOOGLE ALERTS with key words so they will receive automatic notices anytime a discussion or article discusses a topic of interest. When they get the alerts they shoot off segments of prepared talking-points to shoot down arguments that threaten the industry's bottom line or image. Very often these blogger comments are highly emotional with attacks on the honesty and integrity of the writers and scientists. It is a wealthy industry and right now it has close to 1,000 lobbyists in Washington, D.C. It basically pays these people to manipulate the message about chemicals and drugs, and is not shy about repeatedly lying. Bloggers are not highly paid but they do reach the public.

It mainly annoyed me that the DUer's attacks were not followed by specific statements, specific challenges, counter-arguments, and sources. That would be true with any kind of post, not just these topics. My bad temper is in part anger at the deficit of documentation by the poster, and partly due to my fury at how industry has managed to brainwash so many people into parroting its line. It gets to the point that even innocent people who don't bother to study this issue, end up sounding like industry flaks. I guess I'm a little pissed too because I expect DUers to think for themselves and to argue specific points with some documentation to back them up. If they don't do that nothing will ever sink in. If they don't check the source of their information (there are equivalents to FOX news in the world of science) -- they end up spouting crap.

But, no matter what the problem, I would be better off presenting the facts with patience. With the damage I see around me from what this industry has done to health and to the environment I do in fact lose patience at times give into the anger.

I'm sorry I made those knee-jerk remarks.

Is that where the word "jerk" comes from when one describes someone as being one? :shrug:

[Richard Steele]

67. Where'd you hear that, the Limbaugh Letter? Stuff and nonsense!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

68. It's true.

There isn't any difference in milk from hormone-treated cows and non-hormone treated cows.

See, the thing about Limbaugh is, he doesn't base his views on scientific evidence. He just says whatever it is he wants to believe, and assumes it's true. He then calls people names if they don't agree with him, and acts very immature.

If anybody's acting like Limbaugh, it ain't Gravity.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. I believe Monsanto is making the argument...

that Hood and Alta Dena dairies, by labeling their products hormone-free, are saying their products are safer than the products from hormone-treated cows, thereby libeling the products from hormone-treated cows as dangerous. While I don't side with Monsanto, they have a valid argument, and to suggest that they're maliciously trying to silence innocent dairies is a bit disingenuous. You may have noticed that labelling compromise on Vermont dairy products (OK, OK, I pigged out on Ben and Jerry's the other night) wherein if they label their products with "milk from hormone free cows" they also have to mention that there isn't any difference between milk from hormone free cows and hormone treated cows. Seems like a fair compromise to me.

[Redstone]

25. Oh, poor, POOR little Monsanto, being beaten up by those EVIL farmers. I'm sobbing.

Redstone

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. And I think it's because of people like you...

that give Monsanto a valid argument.

[Redstone]

30. Oh, it's MY fault they're such evil fuckers. Yeah, right. What's your angle? Own their stock?

Redstone

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. Do I own stock?

Do you work for chemtrail corporations?

[Redstone]

41. Nope. But then again, I'm not the one defending them.

Redstone

[fed-up]

50. People like us have the RIGHT TO CHOOSE-labels give us that choice-F*CK Monsanto nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

66. Sure you do.

But you haven't got the right to make up nonsense about how milk from cows treated with hormones is more dangerous than the "organic" stuff.

[bettyellen]

34. but the treated milk is shown to be different and monsanto wants to lie to consumers....

because they may infer that (unintentionally) different milk means less haelthy milk. monsanto knows people would prefer to have the choice NOT to use this product. they'd like to foll people into ingesting altered milk. that's fucked up.

[NickB79]

79. Not according to the FDA

http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CVM_Updates/cpetup.html

[bettyellen]

82. seriously, you believe Bush's FDA? Is that the one agency he allows to tell the truth?

i have read about independent tests which differ with what the FDA has to say.....and hell yeah, I trust them more.

[NickB79]

84. Actually, rBGH was introduced long before Bush took office

We were discussing use of rBGH when I was in high school in the 1990's. I guess we should start questioning Clinton's FDA, by your logic.

[bettyellen]

86. well it's sad this is all based on Monsanto's research, because we can;t trust it- they been busted

before for hiding problems with their products, so basically I think you'd have to be an idiot to think they'll police themselves. Be my guest if you want to trust them . No reason people should not have a choice to reject their products, even if you or they don;t like the reasons.
All we have is Monsanto and you asking consumers to trust them. It ain;t nearly enough for me or the majority of consumers. The majority of the public that is aware of it does not want this product- should be their choice to know when it is being sold to them. .

[AikidoSoul]

46. As a defender of Monsanto's position -- you are saying it's o.k. to force farmers to

advertize Monsanto's own lie on their labels!

Somehow your name seems to make more sense now.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

62. "Somehow your name seems to make more sense now."

Trust me, it's been that way from day one here.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

15. Biggest. Criminal. Corporation. Ever n/t

[depakid]

16. Rackeeters, basically

and they need to be investigated and prosecuted.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

17. They lean VERY heavily on their congresscritters

and PAC delegates.

[lostnfound]

57. They lean VERY heavily on the media, too -- Into the Buzzsaw

is a book of essays by investigative reporters whose work was shut down by intense pressure, threats, etc. by either government or corporate interests.

Two TV reporters -- Jane Akre and Steve Wilson -- in Tampa started investigating BGH for their TV news and Monsanto's pressure, and their own subsequent refusal to whitewash the story, caused them to end up fired. They sued, won, lost on appeal. TV news has no obligation to be truthful..

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Akre-Wilson-Fox-TV2apr98.htm

Monsanto comes down hard on any opposition.

[gravity]

19. What did they do that needs to be prosecuted?

[depakid]

21. This time you mean?

One would have to instigate and see-

Over the years, Monsanto has done more abusive (and outright dangerous) things than any other I can think of.

How about spreading GE seeds and crops- then intimidating and even suing farmers whose crops they find to have been cross pollinated with their "genes."

There are many, many more instances like this... like I said, these people are racketeers. Their corporate charter needs to be revoked and their assets sold off to the highest bidders.

[Jcrowley]

24. Monsanto's Criminal Record For Environmental Contamination

Monsanto's Criminal Record For Environmental Contamination

Monsanto has been identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as being the "potentially responsible party" for no fewer than 93 contaminated sites (Superfund Sites) in the United States.

Monsanto has also admitted: "There are various other lawsuits, claims and proceedings that state agencies and others have asserted against the company seeking remediation of alleged environmental impairment."

1986 - A U.S. District Court found Monsanto liable in the death of a Texas employee from leukemia caused by exposure to the carcinogen benzene. The plaintiff's family contended that Monsanto had neglected to monitor benzene emissions at the plant and had failed to instruct workers about the risks of handling benzene-tainted compounds. The court awarded the plaintiff's family $108 million.

1988 - Monsanto agreed to a $1.5 million settlement in a chemical poisoning case filed by over 170 former employees of the company's Nitro, West Virginia facility. Six workers said they had been exposed to chemicals which gave them a rare form of bladder cancer.

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/usa/press/reports/monsanto-greenpeace-corporat.html

What haven't they done that needs to be prosecuted would lead to a much shorter list. In fact it would be non-existent. Oh yeah and Agent Orange, Agent Blue and Agent White that are still contaminating the rice fields of Viet Nam.

This just scratches the surface. St.Louis is the second most dioxin contaminated place in the world, Seveso, Italy being the first, and this thanks to Monsanto. Other than the US military you would be hard pressed to find a more polluting and destructive entity on the planet.

Did you Monsanto got it's start in WW1 manufacturing fuel propellents(?) for rockets?

[Redstone]

26. You don't know ANYTHING about Monsanto, so why are you in this discussion? Or do you

maybe work for them?

Redstone

[HCE SuiGeneris]

36. I have seen many odd

"points of view" from said poster, many times thrown as bait and then abandoned on the thread.

[Redstone]

43. That's NO surprise, given his/her posts here, but thanks for the heads-up anyway. I'll keep

it in mind.

That said, anyone who would actually DEFEND a company like Monsanto must have some kind of twisted agenda.

I'm a capitalist to the bone, but that company is EVIL.

Redstone

[gravity]

37. And you must work for the organic farming lobby

posting misleading information to make greater profits.

Do you have proof that rBST milk is unsafe?

[Redstone]

42. I asked for a motivation first. Got an answer?

Redstone

[gravity]

72. My true allegence is to the Illuminati

:evilgrin:

[IChing]

47. Yes I have proof it is unsafe, do you have proof that it is safe?

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/25/1450246

http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Akre-Wilson-Fox-TV2apr98.htm

[nosmokes]

69. that's a way go from riches to rags in a hurry!

work as a lobbyist for the *real* organic farmers. yeah, they like they shit money every morning. puuhleeze. i nominate gravity's line as the weakest comeback ever on the DU GMO/organic debates.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

70. You call that the weakest comeback?

Isn't substituting the allegation that somebody works for GM companies in place of an actual argument basically saying "look at me! I'm a woo woo tinfoil whacko!?"

Seems that way to me.

[gravity]

71. Thanks for the nomination

But my point is that the organic farmers are trying to increase their profits too. They spew just as much or even more disinformation as Monsanto for their own personal gain.

[nosmokes]

74. the organic farmers i know aren't trying to infect other farmer's fields with

their own patented bullshit so that they can can get a cut of the pie for not working. the organic farmers i know aren't bribing gov't officials so that they can get approval to plant their frankenfood shit. the organic farmers i know are proud as hell of their product and are quick to own up to the fact that it is *their* product and they're proud to have their name on it. the enjoy providing healthy wholesome food to pepople and families. real food. food that hasn't been adulterated with poisons and gene splicings from god knows what or hormones that no one needs or mega doses of anti-biotics because their animals are raised in such inhumane conditions they're guaranteed to get sick. the farmers i know will look you in the eye. theyy aren't in court w/ their lawyers or hiding behind lobbyists TRYING TO KEEP THE FACT THEIR PRODUCT IS IN THE FOOD YOU'RE EATING AND FEDING YOUR FAMILY!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

80. the organic farm product consumers that I know...

are trying to spread false rumors about non-organically grown stuff, in order justify... Oh, I don't know, their own crazy conspiracy theories I guess.

[nosmokes]

87. as soon as you see me promoting some conspiracy you drop the dime, ok?

until then, your snide little inneuendo and corporate ass kissing is really fucking tiresome. if you ever backed your shit up with some solid science instead of corporate propaganda and business group fluff then maybe your constant nipping at the heels wouldn't be so annoying. as it is, you're a great big ole ripe pimple on the smooth face of serenity.

[AikidoSoul]

91. KOREAN COURT INDICTS DOW & MONSANTO

KOREAN COURT INDICTS DOW & MONSANTO

For over three decades, Dow and Monsanto have denied that Agent Orange is toxic, thereby avoiding billions of dollars in financial liabilities resulting from the massive and indiscriminate spraying of the toxic defoliant during the Vietnam War. In a landmark lawsuit last month, a Seoul, Korea High Court ruled against Monsanto and Dow in favor of Korean veterans who fought in the Vietnam War and have suffered serious health injuries from Agent Orange. The court ruled there is ample evidence that Monsanto and Dow knew how toxic Agent Orange was before the corporations dumped 19 million gallons of the now banned herbicide on Vietnam between1965 and 1972. The court said there is conclusive scientific data connecting Agent Orange with 11 types of medical conditions, including non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease, prostate cancer and diabetes.

Empowered by the successful lawsuit, Korean and Vietnamese veterans will rally outside the White House in April, calling on the U.S. government to assist in efforts to pay the victims of Agent Orange compensation for medical costs associated with exposure to the herbicide.
Learn more: http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/orange060216.cfm

[AikidoSoul]

92. Agent-Orange deformed children were brought to the conference as dramatic evidence of its effects

The Hanoi conference was organized to try to get some compensation from Dow and Monsanto to clean up the huge amount of contamination, and to compensate victims.

Dow and Monsanto will never, and can never compensate the victims of Agent Orange in Vietnam whose lands, waters, animals, fish, and human bodies are contaminated. Our own Vietnam veterans familes have suffered for generations from terrible birth defects and chronic illnesses -- as do their offspring. The U.S. government denied benefits to Agent Orange victims for over thirty years. It took the Air Force nearly thirty yers to admit it had altered a major study on Agent Orange so it would conclude that there was no link between it and vet's illnesses. Later, after many vet had died, it apologized.

Here in the U.S., Betty Mekdeci from Birth Defects Research for Children in Orlando, FL has the world's best archive on children born in the U.S. of Vietnam vets whose children were born with birth defects. Our own government does not do that job.

Remember -- Agent Orange is simply the combination of two common herbicides -- 2,4-D and 2,4-T. Both of these products have multiple names. People here in our own community have husbands and children affected by Agent Orange. This story is about people in Viet Nam who were horrifically injured by these chemicals -- and who will never find justice here on earth. This article erroneously refers to "quality control issues". There were none. These chemicals produced dioxin as a contaminant -- and that was considered o.k. by the manufacturers.

Shame on Monsanto and Dow for eternity.






Agent Orange Victims Gather to Seek Justice
Reuters

Tuesday 28 March 2006

Hanoi - Vietnam War veterans from the United States, South Korea, Australia and Vietnam gathered on Tuesday to call for more help for the victims of the Agent Orange defoliant used by the US military.

Deformed children born to parents Vietnam believes were affected by the estimated 20 million gallons of herbicides, including Agent Orange, poured on the country were brought to the conference as dramatic evidence of its effects.

"The use of Agent Orange in Vietnam produced unacceptable threats to life, violated international law and created a toxic wasteland that continued to kill and injure civilian populations long after the war was over," said Joan Duffy from Pennsylvania.

<<<<SNIP>>>>>>

Dioxin can cause cancer, deformities and organ dysfunction. Manufacturers named in the suit included Dow Chemical Co. and Monsanto Co..

VAVA chairman Dang Vu Hiep said Vietnam's lawsuit against US chemical manufacturers was meant not only to help Vietnamese victims, but also victims in other countries.

In January, a South Korean appeals court ordered Dow Chemical Co and Monsanto Co. to pay $65 million in damages to 20,000 of the country's Vietnam War veterans for exposure to defoliants such as Agent Orange.

Due to problems arising from jurisdiction and the amount of time that has elapsed since the war, legal experts said it will be cumbersome or perhaps impossible for the South Korean veterans to collect damages.

The chemical remains in the water and soil, scientists say.

"Thirty years after the fire ceased, many Vietnamese are still dying due to the effect of toxic chemicals sprayed by the US forces in Vietnam and many Vietnamese will still be killed by the chemicals," said Bui Tho Tan, a war reporter who suffers from throat cancer.

"Those who committed the crime must be punished," he said.

For an article link (it's no longer available at the N.Y. Times / Reuters link) go here:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0328-04.htm

[AikidoSoul]

93. "Women who eat GM foods while pregnant risk endangering their unborn babies...."

Isn't soya also put into babies' formula these days?:

think: :think: :think: :think: :think: :think: :think: think: :think: :think: :think: :think: :think:


http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article337253.ece

GM: New study shows unborn babies could be harmed

Mortality rate for new-born rats six times higher when mother was fed on a diet of modified soya

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 08 January 2006

Women who eat GM foods while pregnant risk endangering their unborn babies, startling new research suggests.

The study - carried out by a leading scientist at the Russian Academy of Sciences - found that more than half of the offspring of rats fed on modified soya died in the first three weeks of life, six times as many as those born to mothers with normal diets. Six times as many were also severely underweight.

The research - which is being prepared for publication - is just one of a clutch of recent studies that are reviving fears that GM food damages human health. Italian research has found that modified soya affected the liver and pancreas of mice. Australia had to abandon a decade-long attempt to develop modified peas when an official study found they caused lung damage.

And last May this newspaper revealed a secret report by the biotech giant Monsanto, which showed that rats fed a diet rich in GM corn had smaller kidneys and higher blood cell counts, suggesting possible damage to their immune systems, than those that ate a similar conventional one.

The United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organisation held a workshop on the safety of genetically modified foods at its Rome headquarters late last year. The workshop was addressed by scientists whose research had raised concerns about health dangers. But the World Trade Organisation is expected next month to support a bid by the Bush administration to force European countries to accept GM foods.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

She found that 36 per cent of the young of the rats fed the modified soya were severely underweight, compared to 6 per cent of the offspring of the other groups. More alarmingly, a staggering 55.6 per cent of those born to mothers on the GM diet perished within three weeks of birth, compared to 9 per cent of the offspring of those fed normal soya, and 6.8 per cent of the young of those given no soya at all.

"The morphology and biochemical structures of rats are very similar to those of humans, and this makes the results very disturbing" said Dr Ermakova. "They point to a risk for mothers and their babies."

Environmentalists say that - while the results are preliminary - they are potentially so serious that they must be followed up. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine has asked the US National Institute of Health to sponsor an immediate, independent follow-up.

The Monsanto soya is widely eaten by Americans. There is little of it, or any GM crop, in British foods though it is imported to feed animals farmed for meat.

Tony Coombes, director of corporate affairs for Monsanto UK, said: "The overwhelming weight of evidence from published, peer-reviewed, independently conducted scientific studies demonstrates that Roundup Ready soy can be safely consumed by rats, as well as all other animal species studied."

What the experiment found

Russian scientists added flour made from a GM soya to the diet of female rats two weeks before mating them, and continued feeding it to them during pregnancy, birth and nursing. Others were give non-GM soya or none at all. Six times as many of the offspring of those fed the modified soya were severely underweight compared to those born to the rats given normal diets. Within three weeks, 55.6 per cent of the young of the mothers given the modified soya died, against 9 per cent of the offspring of those fed the conventional soya.

[MisterP]

18. didn't these howling brats win over Stoneybrook Farms or something

forcing a disclaimer to the statement of rBST-free-ness?

[Jcrowley]

23. rBGH is unsafe, unhealthy and unnecessary

1. The Veterinary Toxicity of Posilac®

Evidence of these toxic effects was first detailed in confidential
Monsanto reports, based on records of secret nationwide rBGH veterinary trials, submitted to the FDA prior to October 1989 when they were leaked to one of the petitioners, Dr. Epstein. He then made these reports available to Congressman John Conyers, Chairman of the House Committee on Government Operations. On May 8, 1990, Congressman Conyers issued the following statement. “I find it reprehensible that Monsanto and the FDA have chosen to suppress and manipulate animal health test data” (1). Details of these toxic effects were subsequently admitted by Monsanto and the FDA, and disclosed on the drug’s veterinary label (Posilac) in November, 1993. These include injection site lesions, a wide range of other toxic effects, and an increased incidence of mastitis, requiring the use of medication and antibiotics, and resulting in their contamination of milk.

2. Abnormalities in rBGH Milk

In a Monsanto Executive Summary, Posilac, January 1994, it was claimed that “natural milk is indistinguishable” from rBGH milk and that “There is no legal basis requiring its labeling.” However, there are a wide range of well-documented abnormalities in rBGH milk, apart from increased IGF-1 levels (2-10). These include: reduction in casein; reduction in short-chain fatty acid and increase in long-chain fatty acid levels; increase in levels of the thyroid hormone triiodothyronine enzyme; contamination with unapproved drugs for treating mastitis; and frequency of pus cells due to mastitis.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_4354.cfm

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

27. This shit doesn't stop. It goes on and on and every few hours there's a new story

of government or corporate evildoers and how the hell can we stop it all???

[Cha]

44. Recommended # 13~!

Fuck monsanto.

Viva Alta Dena & Hood! Don't let the Feds silence you. monsanto is the one that needs to be eradicated.

[nam78_two]

51. K&R.nt

[OneBlueSky]

56. betcha ten bucks the feds comply with Monsanto's request . . .

just a hunch . . . :shrug:

[NastyDiaper]

58. I have two girls. Wherever rBST goes, I will not.

Living in central FL, I buy this: http://organicvalley.coop/our_story/meet_the_farmers/florida.html

[rucky]

59. I'm sorry, but the FDA under Clinton...

approved all kids of shit that we're paying for now.

:shrug:

[nosmokes]

76. and clinton has what to do w/ this exactly?

i i don't disagree, i'm not a member of the church of bill myself, but last time i looked at the calendar he had not been in the WH for about 6 1/2 years. just wondering why you infest the field w/ clinton weeds at this point?

[Canuckistanian]

61. rBST is banned in Canada

Health Canada made this statement:

"The veterinary experts cited an increased risk of mastitis of up to 25%, of infertility by 18%, and of lameness by up to 50%. These increased risks and overall reduced body condition lead to a 20-25% increased risk of culling from the herd."

[formercia]

63. I know a Dairy Farmer who's Cows have some of the highest production

in the World. He sells his Heifers for big bucks and he doesn't use hormones to get increased production. Hormones are for Dairymen that are too cheap to buy good herd stock.

One day I helped him round up a Heifer that ran off. He told me that it was already sold to an outfit in Saudi Arabia for in the high 5 figures. He laughed because he had been thinking of turning her into hamburger because she was so problematic.

I wonder how far she got into the Desert.

[tbyg52]

64. It's the CORPORATIONS that are the *real* problem, I'm tellin' ya--

our lousy government is just the symptom.

[dragonlady]

75. Russ Feingold fought for BGH labels on Wisconsin milk

When he was in the state Senate he got a law passed to allow dairies to state on the label if they were free of BGH. That was before he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1992. What a fine consumer rights measure! Sadly, the milk now doesn't seem to have any such labels anymore.

[gravity]

77. All milk contains BGH

Saying that it doesn't is false advertising

[Jcrowley]

89. BGH

and rBGH are two different things.

[dragonlady]

95. Of course I meant rBGH

I should have thought it was obvious from the context, but I guess not. The point is that consumers should be able to have the information and decide whether they want to use food produced that way and feed it to their kids. We were proud of Russ Feingold for giving the choice.

[govegan]

83. n/t

[LeftyMom]

90. right click, save as

Gotta keep that one. :D

[cascagraphic]

88. Corporate America knows this President is censor #1. Why wouldn't they send their lobbyists calling?

[AikidoSoul]

94. Monsanto secretly paid world-famous top British scientist who investigated cancer risks in industry

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1967385,00.html

Renowned cancer scientist was paid by chemical firm for 20 years


Sarah Boseley, health editor
Friday December 8, 2006
The Guardian


A world-famous British scientist failed to disclose that he held a paid consultancy with a chemical company for more than 20 years while investigating cancer risks in the industry, the Guardian can reveal.

Sir Richard Doll, the celebrated epidemiologist who established that smoking causes lung cancer, was receiving a consultancy fee of $1,500 a day in the mid-1980s from Monsanto, then a major chemical company and now better known for its GM crops business.

While he was being paid by Monsanto, Sir Richard wrote to a royal Australian commission investigating the potential cancer-causing properties of Agent Orange, made by Monsanto and used by the US in the Vietnam war. Sir Richard said there was no evidence that the chemical caused cancer.

Documents seen by the Guardian reveal that Sir Richard was also paid a £15,000 fee by the Chemical Manufacturers Association and two other major companies, Dow Chemicals and ICI, for a review that largely cleared vinyl chloride, used in plastics, of any link with cancers apart from liver cancer - a conclusion with which the World Health Organisation disagrees. Sir Richard's review was used by the manufacturers' trade association to defend the chemical for more than a decade.

The revelations will dismay scientists and other admirers of Sir Richard's pioneering work and fuel a rift between the majority who support his view that the evidence shows cancer is a product of modern lifestyles and those environmentalists who argue that chemicals and pollution must be to blame for soaring cancer rates.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<SNIP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


But a Swedish professor who believes that some of Sir Richard's work has led to the underestimation of the role of chemicals in causing cancers said that transparency was all-important. "It's OK for any scientist to be a consultant to anybody, but then this should be reported in the papers that you publish," said Lennart Hardell of University Hospital, Orebro.

Sir Richard died last year. Among his papers in the Wellcome Foundation library archive is a contract he signed with Monsanto. Dated April 29 1986, it extends for a year the consulting agreement that began on May 10 1979 and offers improved terms. "During the one-year period of this extension your consulting fee shall be $1,500 per day," it says.

Monsanto said yesterday it did not know how much work Sir Richard did for the company, but said he was an expert witness for Solutia, a chemical business spun off from Monsanto, as recently as 2000.