Jump to content

Bovine somatotropin: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 75: Line 75:


===Lawsuit against WTVT===
===Lawsuit against WTVT===
In 1997, [[Steve Wilson (reporter)|Steve Wilson]] and [[Jane Akre]] were terminated by television station WTVT, a FOX affiliate. They filed suit, claiming the termination was due to their involvement in an investigative report criticizing Monsanto's use of rBGH, which the station did not air. Wilson and Akre claimed the station had engaged in "news distortion" under pressure from Monsanto. The lawyers from Monsanto had previously threatened WTVT, warning them that. negative consequences would occur in the case that the original story would be published. After over 50 edits of the original story, WTVT later aired a similar report, which included responses from Monsanto, while replacing the word "cancer" with "negative health implications" throughout the original. WTVT ultimately won the suit, and the plaintiff's claims were dismissed.<ref name="Reason">''[http://reason.com/archives/2006/05/05/the-strange-case-of-steve-wils Reason]'': "The Strange Case of Steve Wilson," John Sugg, May 2006 issue.</ref> WTVT won the case because Wilson and Akre did not have whistle-blower status. The reason they did not have whistle-blower status is because it is legal to report false news. This controversial coverup due to pressure from Monsanto raises several red flags that indicate Monsanto's efforts to cover up the health issues associated with their product.
In 1997, [[Steve Wilson (reporter)|Steve Wilson]] and [[Jane Akre]] were terminated by television station WTVT, a FOX affiliate. They filed suit, claiming the termination was due to their involvement in an investigative report criticizing Monsanto's use of rBGH, which the station did not air. Wilson and Akre claimed the station had engaged in "news distortion" under pressure from Monsanto. The lawyers from Monsanto had previously threatened WTVT, warning them that negative consequences would occur in the case that the original story would be published. After over 50 edits of the original story, WTVT later aired a similar report, which included responses from Monsanto, while replacing the word "cancer" with "negative health implications" throughout the original. WTVT ultimately won the suit, and the plaintiff's claims were dismissed.<ref name="Reason">''[http://reason.com/archives/2006/05/05/the-strange-case-of-steve-wils Reason]'': "The Strange Case of Steve Wilson," John Sugg, May 2006 issue.</ref> WTVT won the case because Wilson and Akre did not have whistle-blower status. The reason they did not have whistle-blower status is because it is legal to report false news. This controversial coverup due to pressure from Monsanto raises several red flags that indicate Monsanto's efforts to cover up the health issues associated with their product.


==Regulation==
==Regulation==

Revision as of 17:04, 7 November 2011

rBST is a product primarily given to dairy cattle by injection to increase milk production.

Bovine somatotropin (abbreviated bST and BST), or BGH, is a chain of amino acids produced by the cow's pituitary gland.[1] Like other hormones, it is produced in small quantities and is used in regulating metabolic processes.[1] Since 1994 it has been possible to synthesize the hormone using recombinant DNA technology to create recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), or artificial growth hormone. Monsanto was the first to develop the technology and marketed it as "Posilac" - a brand now owned by Elanco Animal Health, a division of Eli Lilly and Company.

The United States is the only developed nation to permit humans to drink milk from cows given artificial growth hormone.[2] Posilac was banned from use in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all European Union countries (currently numbering 27), by 2000 or earlier.

In the United States, public opinion has caused a number of products and retailers to become rBST-free.[3][4][5][6]

Posilac

In 1937, the administration of BST was shown to increase the milk yield in lactating cows by preventing mammary cell death in dairy cattle. Until the 1980s, there was very limited use of the compound in agriculture as the sole source of the hormone was from bovine cadavers. During this time, the knowledge of the structure and function of the hormone increased.[7] Monsanto developed a recombinant version of BST, brand-named Posilac, in 1994,[8] which is produced through a genetically engineered E. coli. A gene that codes for the sequence of amino acids that make up BST is inserted into the DNA of the E. coli bacterium. The bacteria are then broken up and separated from the rBST, which is purified to produce the injectable hormone. Growth hormones associated with injections given to dairy cows to increase milk production are known under an assortment of terms, but these terms, in general, refer to the Monsanto product. The Monsanto fact sheet on its proprietary product states that, when injected into dairy cattle, the product can increase milk production by an average of more than 10% over the span of 300 days.[9]

Use of Posilac

A 2007 USDA Dairy Survey estimated rBGH use at 15.2% of operations and 17.2% of cows.[10]

An average dairy cow begins her lactation with a moderate daily level of milk production. This daily output increases until, at about 70 days into the lactation, production peaks. From that time until the cow is dry, production slowly decreases. This increase and decrease in production is partially caused by the count of milk-producing cells in the udder. Cell counts begin at a moderate number, increase during the first part of the lactation, then decrease as the lactation proceeds. Once lost, these cells generally do not regrow until the next lactation.

To apply Posilac for maximum effect, farmers are recommended to make the first Posilac application about 50 days into the cow's lactation, just before she peaks. The Posilac then sustains already-present mammary cells, limiting the rate of production decrease after production peaks. After the peak, production declines with or without application of Posilac, but declines more slowly with Posilac than without. This decrease in the rate of production decline permits dairy cows to produce more milk over the span of a lactation - at its best, this will be seen by seven to eight more pounds of milk being produced per day than would be produced without Posilac.

Comparison with non-rBGH milk

FDA rBST labeling guidelines state, "FDA is concerned that the term 'rbST free' may imply a compositional difference between milk from treated and untreated cows rather than a difference in the way the milk is produced. Without proper context, such statements could be misleading. Such unqualified statements may imply that milk from untreated cows is safer or of higher quality than milk from treated cows. Such an implication would be false and misleading".[2]

In an article by Tom Laskawy from Grist "GOGREEN", he summarized: On September 30, 2010, a U.S. court of appeal found based on studies presented that there is a "compositional difference" between milk from rBSG-treated cows and untreated milk. The court found that studies have shown that rBST milk has: increased levels of the hormone IGF-1; lower nutritional quality when produced at certain points in the cow's lactation cycle; and more somatic cell counts, which may "make the milk turn sour more quickly."[2] While there is a slight increase in IGF-I, IGF-II does not increase when cows are treated with rBST.[1]

Further, the FDA's concern only regards usual compositional differences, and not the risks typically associated with artificial manipulation of natural processes.[citation needed] This statement of concern may imply that such risks do not exist, and could therefore be considered to be "false and misleading" in itself.

Controversy

Part of the controversy in the use of BST is concerns over potential effects on animal health.

Animal health

Two meta-analyses have been published on rBST's effects on bovine health.[11][12] Findings indicated an average increase in milk output ranging from 11%-16%, a nearly 25% increase in the risk of clinical mastitis, a 40% reduction in fertility and 55% increased risk of developing clinical signs of lameness. The same study reported a decrease in body condition score for cows treated with rBST even though there was an increase in their dry matter intake.

A European Union scientific commission was asked to report on the incidence of mastitis and other disorders in dairy cows and on other aspects of the welfare of dairy cows.[13] The commission's statement, subsequently adopted by the European Union, stated that the use of rBST substantially increased health problems with cows, including foot problems, mastitis and injection site reactions, impinged on the welfare of the animals and caused reproductive disorders. The report concluded that, on the basis of the health and welfare of the animals, rBST should not be used. Health Canada prohibited the sale of rBST in 1999; the external committees found that, although there was no significant health risk to humans, the drug presents a threat to animal health, and, for this reason, cannot be sold in Canada.[14]

Human health

Human health concerns centre around three areas:

  • rBST and its byproducts
  • increased levels of IGF
  • secondary effects, e.g. the increased use of antibiotics to treat mastitis

The Food and Drug Administration, World Health Organization, American Medical Association, American Dietetics Association, and the National Institute of Health have independently confirmed that dairy products and meat from BST treated cows is safe for human consumption.[1]

Oral consumption: The overall composition of the milk including the fat, protein and lactose content are not altered substantially by the use of rBST in dairy cows. The milk may have a slight change in fat content within the first few weeks of rBST treatment as the cow is allowed to adjust their metabolism and feed intake. The changes in the fat content have been shown to be temporary. The composition of the milk has been examined in more than 200 different rBST treated milk experiments. Natural variation within milk is normal with or without rBST treatment in cows. This is due to genetics, location, feed, age and other environmental factors. The fat content within milk is of high concern due to the nutritional value of the milk changing with fat content. The fat content can also change the flavor of the milk. Cows that are in negative energy balance can have longer chained unsaturated fats which is similar to the fats found in rBST treated cow's milk. Protein in milk content has also been studied and was shown to have no apparent change in rBST treated cows. Nutritionally important minerals that are normally in milk were also unaltered within rBST cow's milk. These mineral studies also showed no significant change in vitamin content. Freezing point, pH, thermal properties, and other manufacturing characteristics of milk was shown to be the same in rBST milk and non-rBST treated milk.[15] Insulin-like growth factor(IGF), normally occurs in bovine and human milk. The rBST treated cows were shown to have an increased level of IGF within its milk content. This increase was shown to be no more than the amount of IGF in early-lactation untreated cows or in the rBST content of human milk. It has also been shown that IGF administered orally has no effect on the organism which ingested it.[citation needed] This is because IGF is denatured within the stomach.[15] IGF is produced by the cow in response to BGH injections,[16] and it is this hormone which increases growth and milk production. Bovine and porcine IGF-I are identical to human IGF-I, while IGF-II differs among animal species.[17]

Injected IGF: Neither IGF-1 or IGF-2 are absorbed by the stomach or intestine after ingestion.[15] Injected or naturally occurring IGF serum levels plays a role in the formation of new tumours [18][19] [20] and increased levels of IGF-1 may be linked to increased risk of breast, colon, and prostate cancer. [21] [22] However IGF is involved in many biological processes so it is not possible to assign a clear-cut cause and effect relationship. IGF-1 is not denatured by pasteurisation, so consumption of milk from rBST treated dairy cows will increase the daily oral intake of IGF-I, but serum levels will not be effected due to the denaturing effect within the stomach.[15]

Further association of serum IGF levels with breast cancer was provided by a 20-year epidemiological study begun in 1976, which was published in 1997.[23]

Lawsuit against WTVT

In 1997, Steve Wilson and Jane Akre were terminated by television station WTVT, a FOX affiliate. They filed suit, claiming the termination was due to their involvement in an investigative report criticizing Monsanto's use of rBGH, which the station did not air. Wilson and Akre claimed the station had engaged in "news distortion" under pressure from Monsanto. The lawyers from Monsanto had previously threatened WTVT, warning them that negative consequences would occur in the case that the original story would be published. After over 50 edits of the original story, WTVT later aired a similar report, which included responses from Monsanto, while replacing the word "cancer" with "negative health implications" throughout the original. WTVT ultimately won the suit, and the plaintiff's claims were dismissed.[24] WTVT won the case because Wilson and Akre did not have whistle-blower status. The reason they did not have whistle-blower status is because it is legal to report false news. This controversial coverup due to pressure from Monsanto raises several red flags that indicate Monsanto's efforts to cover up the health issues associated with their product.

Regulation

Use of the recombinant supplement has been controversial. While it is legal in the United States (though not without reaction) and 1 other industrialized nation (Mexico), it is 90%[clarification needed] banned in Canada, Japan, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand. In Canada, bulk milk products from the United States that have been produced with rBST are still allowed to be sold and used in food manufacture (cheese, yogurt etc.). In the EU, dairy products from the US are banned from import.

Regulation outside the United States

In Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, rBST is not approved for use.[25]

In 1990, The European Union placed a moratorium on its sale by all member nations. It was turned into a permanent ban starting from January 1, 2000.[26] An in-depth report published in 1999 analysed in detail the various human health risks associated with rBST.[27]

Canada's health board, Health Canada, refused to approve rBST for use on Canadian dairies, citing concerns over animal health.[14] The study found the occurrence of an antibody reaction, possible hypersensitivity, in a subchronic (90-day) study of rbST oral toxicity in rats that resulted in one test animal's developing an antibody response at low dose (0.1 mg/kg/day) after 14 weeks." However, the board stated that, with the exception of concerns raised regarding hypersensitivity, "the panel finds no biologically plausible reason for concern about human safety if rBST were to be approved for sale in Canada."[28]

The Codex Alimentarius Commission, a United Nations body that sets international food standards, has to date refused to approve rBST as safe. The Codex Alimentarius does not have authority to ban or approve the hormone - but its decisions are regarded as a standard and approval by the Codex would have allowed exporting countries to challenge countries with a ban on rBGH before the WTO.[29]

Regulation inside the United States

In 1995, the product was approved for use in the U.S. by the FDA, and its use began in 1994. The product is now sold in all 50 states.

The Food and Drug Administration stated that food products made from rBST treated cows are safe for human consumption, and no significant difference exists between milk derived from rBST-treated and non-rBST-treated cows.[30] The FDA found BGH to be biologically inactive when consumed by humans and found no biological distinction between rBST and BST.[30] In 1990, an independent panel convened by the National Institute of Health supported the FDA opinion that milk and meat from cows supplemented with rBST is safe for human consumption.[31]

Labeling

The FDA does not require special labels for products produced from cows given rBST but has charged several dairies with "misbranding" its milk as having no hormones, because all milk contains hormones and cannot be produced in such a way that it would not contain any hormones.[32] Monsanto sued Oakhurst Dairy of Maine over its use of a label which pledged to not use artificial growth hormones.[33] The dairy stated that its disagreement was not over the scientific evidence for the safety of rBST (Monsanto's complaint about the label), but "We're in the business of marketing milk, not Monsanto's drugs." The suit was settled when the dairy agreed to add a qualifying statement to its label: "FDA states: No significant difference in milk from cows treated with artificial growth hormones." The FDA recommends this additional labeling but does not require it.[33][34] The settlement itself caused much controversy, with anti-rBST advocates claiming that Oakhurst had capitulated in response to intimidation by a larger corporation and others claiming that Oakhurst's milk labels were in and of themselves using misleading scare tactics that deserved legal and legislative response.[citation needed]

Demand for milk without synthetic hormones has increased substantially in the US since Monsanto introduced its rBST product; organic milk is now an important sector of the organic food market.[35]

Labeling in Kansas

A pro-factory farming majority in the Kansas Legislation passed a bill that would have forced dairies that did not use rBGH to print disclaimers on their labels alleging that the hormone was safe, despite its demonstrable negative effects on animal health. These ramifications include the overuse of antibiotics that accelerate the evolution of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria that raise the possibility of making human diseases less treatable. The bill was vetoed in the last days of the 2009 legislative session by then-Governor Kathleen Sibelius who left office shortly afterward to become Health and Human Services Secretary. The legislature failed to override the veto. [36]

Labeling in Pennsylvania

In 2007, the U.S. state of Pennsylvania adopted a regulation that would have banned the practice of labeling milk as derived from cows not treated with rBST. This prohibition was to go into effect January 1, 2008, but was delayed to February 1, 2008 in order to give interested parties more time to submit comments to the state's Department of Agriculture. Milk producers are now able to distinguish between milk produced by cows treated with rBST and cows receiving "natural" BST treatment or no treatment.[37]

Response from commercial groups

Several milk purchasers and resellers have elected not to purchase milk produced with rBST. The nation's largest dairy processor, Dean Foods, no longer sells milk from rBST-treated cows though an email from Dean Foods received by a consumer on September 23, 2010, states, "At Dean Foods, we believe that our dairy producers have the right to produce safe, high-quality milk using any approved and available technology..."[citation needed] which would include Artificial Growth Hormones or rBST/rBGH. The top 3 grocery retailers in the nation, Wal-Mart, Kroger, and Costco have pledged not to sell such milk in its stores. Specific examples include:

  • Winder Farms, a home delivery dairy and grocer in Utah and Nevada, sells rBST-free milk.
  • Guernsey Farms, a dairy farm and distributor located in Northville, Michigan sells and distributes rBST-free dairy products in Southeastern Michigan. Its milk has been labeled rBST free for a number of years.[38]
  • Safeway in the northwestern United States stopped buying from dairy farmers that use rBST in January 2007.[3] The two Safeway plants produce milk for all Safeway stores in Oregon, Southwest Washington, and parts of northern California. Safeway's plant in San Leandro, CA had already been rBST-free for two years.[4]
  • Chipotle Mexican Grill has also announced it will serve rBST-free sour cream at its restaurants.[4]
  • Kroger has banned rBST-derived milk from all its stores (including its subsidiaries such as Ralphs) as of February 2008,[5]
  • Publix announced it has been rBST-free since May, 2007.[39]
  • Braum's has also issued a press release stating its milk is rBST-free.[40]
  • Starbucks Company has as of January 2008 made all dairy in beverages rBST free.[41]
  • Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores featured artificial-hormone-free "Great Value" brand milk, but did not label it as such in 2008.[42]
  • Ben & Jerry's ice cream uses milk and cream from dairy farms that have pledged not to use rBST.[43]
  • Tillamook County Creamery Association, a co-operative made up of 110 dairy farms, in 2005 asked all of its members to cease use of bovine growth hormone.

Monsanto has responded to this trend by lobbying state governments to ban the practice of distinguishing between milk from farms pledged not to use rBST and those that do. According to The New York Times,[44] a pro-rBST advocacy group called Afact has been most active in these lobbying efforts.

Thus far, a large-scale negative response to legislative and regulatory efforts has kept state regulators from pushing through strictures that would ban hormone-free milk labels, though several politicians have tried, including Pennsylvania's (see the Pennsylvania section above) agriculture secretary Dick Wolff, who tried to ban rBST-free milk on the grounds that it would alleviate consumer confusion. Proposed labeling changes have been floated by lobbyists in New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, Kansas, Utah, Missouri and Vermont. So far, however, this effort has been unsuccessful.

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d Charlotte P. Brennand, PhD, Extension Food Safety Specialist. "Bovine Somatotropin in Milk" (PDF). Retrieved 2011-03-06.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ a b c "Court Rules rBGH-Free Milk *Is* Better than the Kind Produced with Artificial Hormones. Now What?". Grist. Retrieved 2010-10-06.
  3. ^ a b "Safeway milk free of bovine hormone". Seattle Post-Intelligencer (via AP). 2007-01-22. Retrieved 2008-04-04.
  4. ^ a b c North, R (2007-01-10). "Safeway & Chipotle Chains Dropping Milk & Dairy Derived from Monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone". Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility. Retrieved 2008-01-29.
  5. ^ a b "Kroger to complete transition to certified rBST-free milk by early 2008 (press release)". Kroger. 2007. Retrieved 2008-01-29.
  6. ^ "Statement and Q&A-Starbucks Completes its Conversion – All U.S. Company-Operated Stores Use Dairy Sourced Without the Use of rBGH". Starbucks Corporation. Retrieved 2008-04-04.
  7. ^ Crooker, BA (1993). "Dairy Research and Bovine Somatotropin". University of Minnesota. Archived from the original on June 18, 2007. Retrieved 2008-01-16. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  8. ^ "General information - Posilac". Monsanto. 2007. Archived from the original on January 1, 2008. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
  9. ^ Barbano, D (2007). "bST Fact Sheet". Monsanto. Archived from the original on December 24, 2007. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
  10. ^ sourcewatch.org accessed 16 Nov 09
  11. ^ Dohoo, I. (1 October 2003). "A meta-analysis review of the effects of recombinant bovine somatotropin: 1. Methodology and effects on production". Can J Vet Res. 67 (4): 241–251. PMC 280708. PMID 14620860. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  12. ^ Dohoo IR, DesCôteaux L, Leslie K; et al. (2003). "A meta-analysis review of the effects of recombinant bovine somatotropin: 2. Effects on animal health, reproductive performance, and culling". Can. J. Vet. Res. 67 (4): 252–64. PMC 280709. PMID 14620861. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  13. ^ Report on Animal Welfare Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotrophin (pdf). The Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare, European Union. 1999-03-10. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
  14. ^ a b "Health Canada rejects bovine growth hormone in Canada". Health Canada. 1999-01-14. Archived from the original on January 10, 2008. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
  15. ^ a b c d Bauman, Dale (12). "Bovine Somatotropin: Review of an Emerging Animal Technology1" (PDF). Journal of Dairy Science. 75 (12): 3432–3451. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(92)78119-3. PMID 1474210. Retrieved 28 April 2011. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  16. ^ Hansen, M (2003-02-11). "Dr. Michael Hansen on rBGH & Monsanto's Recent Intimidation Tactics". Organic Consumers Association. Retrieved 2008-01-16.
  17. ^ Fotsis T, Murphy C, Gannon F (1990). "Nucleotide sequence of the bovine insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) and its IGF-1A precursor". Nucleic Acids Res. 18 (3): 676. doi:10.1093/nar/18.3.676. PMC 333498. PMID 2308858.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  18. ^ Yang,D; Rogler; Rogler, CE (1993). "Coordinate expression of N-myc 2 and insulin-like growth factor II in precancerous altered hepatic foci in woodchuck hepatitis virus carriers". Cancer Research. 53 (9): 2020–7. PMID 8481904.
  19. ^ Sell, C; Rubini; Rubin; Liu; Efstratiadis; Baserga (1993). "Simian virus 40 large tumor antigen is unable to transform mouse embryonic fibroblasts lacking type 1 insulin-like growth factor receptor". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 90 (23): 11217–21. doi:10.1073/pnas.90.23.11217. PMC 47953. PMID 8248231.
  20. ^ Minniti CP; Luan D, O'Grady C; Rosenfeld RG; Oh Y, Helman LJ (1995). "Insulin-like growth factor II overexpression in myoblasts induces phenotypic changes typical of the malignant phenotype". Cell Growth and Differentiation. 6 (3).
  21. ^ Yu, Herbert, and Thomas Rohan (2000). "Role of the Insulin-like Growth Factor Family in Cancer Development and Progression". Journal of the National Cancer Institute (92): 1472–89.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  22. ^ Chan, June M.; Meir J. Stampfer; Edward Giovannucci; Peter H. Gann; Jing Ma; Peter Wilkinson; Charles H. Hennekens; Michael Pollak (1998). "Plasma Insulin-Like Growth Factor-I and Prostate Cancer Risk: A Prospective Study". Science. 279 (5350): 563–6. doi:10.1126/science.279.5350.563. PMID 9438850.
  23. ^ SUSAN E. HANKINSON; MANSON; Colditz (1997). "The Nurses' Health Study: 20-Year Contribution to the Understanding of Health Among Women". Journal of Women's Health. 6 (1): 49–62. doi:10.1089/jwh.1997.6.49.
  24. ^ Reason: "The Strange Case of Steve Wilson," John Sugg, May 2006 issue.
  25. ^ Horovitz, Bruce. Companies cut synthetic hormone from dairy products, USA Today, March 16, 2009. Retrieved on 2009-05-20.
  26. ^ European Council Decision of December 17, 1999
  27. ^ "Report on Public Health Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotrophin". 1999.
  28. ^ Executive Summary - Report of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada Expert Panel on Human safety of rBST
  29. ^ INTERNATIONAL HEALTH GROUP SHUNS BGH
  30. ^ a b "Report on the Food and Drug Administration's Review of the Safety of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin". 1999. Retrieved 2009-05-02.
  31. ^ Bovine Somatotropin
  32. ^ Raloff, J (2003-11-01). "Hormones in Your Milk". Science News. 164 (18). Archived from the original (– Scholar search) on January 26, 2008. Retrieved 2008-01-29. {{cite journal}}: External link in |format= (help) [dead link‍]
  33. ^ a b Wickenheiser, M (2003-07-08). "Oakhurst Sued by Monsanto Over Milk Advertising". Portland Press Herald. Retrieved 2008-01-29.
  34. ^ Maine Dairy Caves In to Pressure from Monsanto on rBGH-Free Labeling
  35. ^ Dimitri, C. "Recent Growth Patterns in the U.S. Organic Foods Market" (pdf). Economic Research Service. Retrieved 2008-01-29. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  36. ^ "Kansas Governor Vetoes Milk Labeling Bill" (pdf). Consumers Union. 2009-04-23. Retrieved 2011-10-28.
  37. ^ Malloy, D (2008-01-18). "State reverses on dairy labeling, allows hormone claims". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved 2008-01-29.
  38. ^ "Guernsey Farms Diary". 2011.
  39. ^ "Publix Milk goes rbST-Free (press release)". Publix. 2007-04-30. Retrieved 2008-01-29.
  40. ^ "Braum's Milk - We Believe in Natural. (press release)". Braum's. 2006. Retrieved 2008-01-29.
  41. ^ "Statement and Q&A-Starbucks Completes its Conversion – All U.S. Company-Operated Stores Use Dairy Sourced Without the Use of rBGH". Starbucks Corporation. Retrieved 2008-04-04.
  42. ^ House, Dawn (2008-03-24). "Wal-Mart milk hormone-free, but labels are mum". The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 2008-04-04.
  43. ^ "Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream - rBGH". Ben & Jerry's. Retrieved 2009-12-01.
  44. ^ Andrew Martin (March 9, 2008). "Fighting on a Battlefield the Size of a Milk Label". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-12-03. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bovine_somatotropin&oldid=459480886"