No Artificial Debate
Lori Dahm, technical editor
My March column raised the ire of both dairy farmers and industry professionals alike wherein I relayed the statement released by Dr. Samuel Epstein alleging that Monsanto had full knowledge of detrimental health effects that rBGH causes in cows.
Many of you were aghast that I would opine negatively upon rGBH, suggesting that a magazine “supporting” the dairy industry has a responsibility to only report upon the safety of this drug. To you I say: Beware of sticking your head in the sand and ignoring growing public sentiment. Although consumers may not be fully educated upon the details of the scientific debate, they are intuitively making purchase decisions that reflect a desire to avoid the artificial bovine growth hormone.
I received letters from Monsanto and IDFA affirming the safety of rGBH and deriding my decision to print information to the contrary. Yet neither of these writers refuted Epstein’s claim that confidential Monsanto files were leaked documenting that injections of rGBH caused pathological lesions, infertility and chronic mastitis in cows.
I recognize that the FDA and other organizations have declared rGBH use safe to humans. But haven’t you noticed the skyrocketing sales of organic milk, or that many consumers seek dairy products that are labeled “free of rGBH”?
Rather than functioning as a mere “yes-man” to beliefs about the safety of rGBH, my opinion column represents a significant segment of the American populace that is increasing every day. Take this as an opportunity to be forewarned of what the future may hold.  
$OMN_arttitle="No Artificial Debate";?>