Big Victory Against rbGH!

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 18:32:09 PM PDT

Save for Ohio. Ohio was the one last state where it looked like they might win. Ultimately the fight went to the courts. Today brought BIG news of a court decision in Ohio. The less significant news out of the court is that milk in Ohio can still say "rbGH-free" but it must also contain an FDA disclaimer saying "[t]he FDA has determined that no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-supplemented and non-rbST-supplemented cows."

Now, here's the BIG news. The court challenged the FDA's finding that there is "no measurable compositional difference" between milk from rbGH-treated cows and milk from untreated cows. According to those who have worked on this issue for nearly two decades now (maybe more), the FDA's claim that there was no compositional difference between milk from rbGH-treated and untreated cows was THE MAJOR roadblock to any good regulation. And the court finally struck it down, citing three reasons why the milk differs: 1. Increased levels of the hormone IGF-1, 2. A period of milk with lower nutritional quality during each lactation, and 3. Increased somatic cell counts (i.e. more pus in the milk).

Below, you will find the exact language of the court's ruling, as well as testimony submitted to the FDA's Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee all the way back in 1993 by Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist at Consumers' Union. Amazing how it only took 17 years to get the truth legally recognized.

More Doctors Drink Milk with rbGH Than Any Other Synthetic Hormone

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 23:21:47 PM PST

However, it turns out that a few bits of the paper are actually false.

The paper claims, for instance, that the safety of rbGH is endorsed by the American Medical Association (AMA)... [The] AMA has no policy on rbGH and offers no such endorsement. Instead, they note the April 2008 AMA newsletter cites past president Ron Davis saying "Hospitals should......use milk produced without recombinant bovine growth hormone".

The paper also lists false endorsements by the American Cancer Society and the American Association of Pediatrics. How did such false statements get into the paper? One of the authors, David Clemmons, called the AMA, the AAP and the ACS endorsements "technically untrue". He says,  "We counted endorsement as failure to oppose rbGH."

There is, however, one endorsement that I don't doubt is true. The American Council on Science and Health. They might sound scientific and unbiased, but check out their long list of corporate sponsors. Ditto on the International Food Information Council. So, don't worry Elanco, we believe that any endorsement you claim you've gotten from a corporate funded astroturf organization is totally true.

Additionally, the Center for Food Safety put out a press release on this matter, which I've included below.

Elanco Markets Unsafe Animal Drug as "Green"

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Feb 03, 2010 at 09:11:31 AM PST

"Use of an FDA-approved feed additive for swine can reduce manure production in pigs by 8 percent."

and

"an FDA-approved swine feed additive could enable the U.S. to maintain pork production levels while raising 11 million fewer hogs. This would also reduce demand for cropland used to grow feed grains by more than 2 million acres."

These are offered as reasons why Elanco's products are "green." They aren't just smart for a farmer's bottom line - they are good for the earth! But that's not the whole picture. A new expose by Alternet shows that Ractopamine (a.k.a. Paylean) is unsafe for humans and cruel to animals. This drug is administered in the last stage of the animal's life, and up to 20 percent of it remains in the animal's tissue at slaughter. This is a drug labeled "Not for use in humans. Individuals with cardiovascular disease should exercise special caution to avoid exposure. Use protective clothing, impervious gloves, protective eye wear, and a NIOSH-approved dust mask." That's not something I'd want to eat.

Alternet also says:

Where was mention of the farmer phone calls to Elanco reporting, "hyperactivity," "dying animals," "downer pigs" and "tying up" and "stress" syndromes, asks the FDA letter. Where was the log of phone calls that included farmers saying, "animals are down and shaking," and "pig vomiting after eating feed with Paylean"?

Wow. No wonder the President of Elanco refers to this drug anonymously when he presents on how sustainable and fantastic his company is. If he told people what he was selling, they'd know he's full of it. This drug is banned in 160 countries, so why is it legal here?

Elanco's Self-Serving White Paper

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 12:00:50 PM PST

Junk Science Study Says Factory Farming is Better

by: Jill Richardson

Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 06:00:00 AM PDT

Contrary to the negative image often associated with large farm operations, the U.S. population's requirements for dairy products is best fulfilled and most sustainable through the application of modern agricultural techniques, a just-released study has shown.

The study, conducted by Drs. Jude Capper and Dale Bauman of Cornell University and Roger Cady, formerly of Monsanto and now with Elanco Animal Health, compared the environmental impact of modern (2007) U.S. dairy production with that of dairy systems in 1944...

Among the findings were that modern dairy practices require considerably fewer resources than dairying in 1944 with 21% of animals, 23% of feedstuffs, 35% of the water and only 10% of the land required to produce the same 1 billion kg of milk.

Waste outputs were similarly reduced, with modern dairy systems producing 24% of the manure, 43% of CH4 and 56% of N2O per billion kg of milk, compared with equivalent milk from historical dairying.

What's wrong with this picture? There's another factor that has also led to increased dairy output (per cow) since 1944: breeding. In the past 60+ years, we have been aggressively breeding our cows to produce more and more milk. Therefore, the amount of resources required by a 1944 dairy cow to produce a gallon of milk would almost certainly exceed the resources required by a 2009 cow to produce that same gallon of milk today, even if they were raised in the same way.

UPDATE: According to a recent USDA report, organic cows produced an average of 13,601 lbs of milk per cow in 2005, compared with 18,983 for conventional cows. Approximately 2/3 of organic cows were raised on pasture. Comparatively, the cows of 1944 cited in the study produced an average of 4,555 lbs of milk per year.

Yet, according to the study:

In 1944, the U.S. dairy population totaled 25.6 million cows producing a total of 53.0 billion kg of milk annually. It was a system characterized by pasture-based systems with rations reliant on home-grown forages with few purchased concentrate feeds. Draft horses powered the majority of agronomical operations, with only 1.2 tractors employed per farm. Inorganic fertilizer use was not yet widespread; instead, animal manure was used to fulfill crop nutrient requirements.

The researchers noted that many of the characteristics of 1944 dairy farming (low-yielding, pasture-based, no antibiotics, inorganic fertilizers, or chemical pesticides) are similar to those of today's modern organic systems.

Again, they are comparing today's modern organic farming to outdated practices of yesteryear. Even in the practices specified here, obviously the vast majority of organic farmers use tractors instead of horses today. What a slap in the face to today's organic dairy farmers who - like Iowa dairy farmer Francis Thicke - hold PhD's in modern scientific fields and run their organic operations according to the latest scientific & technological innovations. Also, I'd love to see a comparison of the nutrition of 1944 milk compared to the milk of today. Productivity isn't the be-all and end-all goal when you are sacrificing nutrition at the same time.