![](/content/DF/2005/05/img/dairyrd.gif)
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";?>