Milk does not do the body good anymore, thanks to the FDA. Your milk on drugs video:
In the diary heartland, in an effort to produce more milk, it is being genetically engineered with bovine growth hormone. Ask yourself, is it safe? What impact does it have on the cows that are injected? Lastly, is it really necessary? All very valid questions we need to ask before we pour some over our cereal in the morning for ourselves or our children.
Farmers inject their cattle with BST and yield 10% more milk from the same herd. A single 500mg dose is given every 14 days, beginning the ninth week of lactation. It is injected into the tailhead or behind the shoulder area of the cow. The leading company in BST production is Monsanto.
The Monsanto scientists took a cow’s growth hormone and altered it with E. coli bacteria.
Monsanto marketed it under the brand name Posilac. It is also called recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH) or recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST). But cows often get sick and die young.
Approved in the United States in 1993, by 2002 rbGH was used on 22% of the nation’s dairy cows. It is banned in the European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan.
Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) has been reliably linked to health problems that cause extreme suffering to cows, including mastitis, a painful inflammation of the udder.
In scientific and public health terms, data continues to pile up that significantly increased levels of the human growth hormone factor IGF-1 in genetically engineered milk and dairy products constitute a serious human health risk for increased breast and colon cancer. In addition, scientific studies have recently been brought to the attention of the World Health Organization that injecting mammals with genetically engineered growth hormones very likely increases their susceptibility to deadly, incurable brain-wasting diseases such as BSE, commonly known as Mad Cow Disease, or its human variant, Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease.
Here is why Drugged Milk is dangerous, and how corporate manipulation, bad science, and political collusion pushed it into our food supply.
• An FDA scientist who demanded more safety studies on rbGH, but was fired for holding up its approval.
• A FOX TV investigative reporter whose news series linking rbGH to cancer was canceled after the station received letters from Monsanto’s attorney threatening “dire consequences for Fox News.”
• Canadian government scientists who wrote a scathing critique of the FDA’s flawed and biased evaluation of rbGH, and then testified about political pressure, stolen evidence, and an alleged bribe offer from Monsanto.
• Rigged research from the drug’s maker, meticulously designed to cover up health problems.
• A scientist who did rbGH research for Monsanto, and then became the drug’s lead reviewer at the FDA.
• Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, who was in charge of FDA policy when rbGH was approved. He later became Monsanto’s vice president.
Part 2 – Your milk on drugs!
“The whole rbGH thing represents fundamental flaws in the regulatory process. . . . It was bad science and bad regulation.”
This was the conclusion of former FDA veterinarian Richard Burroughs, who was a lead reviewer in the approval process of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH) for nearly five years. The drug “was approved prematurely without adequate information,” says Burroughs, whose life and career became a casualty in a perfect storm of industry manipulation and political collusion.
As the only member of the FDA team who had dairy herd experience, Burroughs wrote the original protocols for evaluating the safety of rbGH on cows. The FDA didn’t conduct the tests themselves. It was always the drug’s maker who performed the studies and reported the results. But according to Burroughs, they “would come in and try to negotiate the protocols to water them down.” And when they ultimately presented their findings, Burroughs was shocked to discover, “They just went out and skewed the data.”
Furthermore, relying on a summary of a study, rather than on detailed
data from the study, would violate FDA’s published procedures. A normal study is for two years when determining if a drug is carcinogenic. Monsanto only tested the rats for 28 or 90 days. If the FDA had looked at the detailed data this would have stood out.
In its 1990 SCIENCE article, FDA said that “the FDA requires the
pharmaceutical companies to submit all studies they conducted on their products” and said, “The companies also submit the raw data from all safety studies that will form the basis of the approval of the product;….”[2,pg.876] Furthermore, FDA explained that, “If the initial toxicity study demonstrates that the protein [such as rBGH] is indeed orally active, additional testing may be required.”[2,pg.876] Thus if FDA had known in 1990 that Monsanto’s rat feeding study had indicated that rBGH was orally active in rats, additional testing could have been required before a decision was made to approve or disapprove the genetically-engineered drug.
The only way to be safe is to buy organic milk, until they stop injecting cows with Bovine Growth Hormones.