My Photo


Tip Jar

Change is good

Tip Jar
Blog powered by Typepad

« Worm composting in New York City: "It's disgusting and you're absolutely crazy" | Main | Give Us Glossy, Please »


This whole seed issue is getting ridiculous and surely you'd think people would have learned by now not to mess with the balance in the ecosystem with plants not meant to be there! Hello...Kudzu!

Creating Round Up ready seeds is a nightmare! I don't want to eat anything sprayed directly with roundup, do you?

And we all know that some insects are starting to show some resistence while birth rates in bees and the like drop near it. Of course, Monsanto isn't going to lie down while anyone officially studies that effect! lol.

This to me is a sign of the dominant business mentality where profits trump all other concerns. That mentality gets to the point of a close minded pathology that does not lead to happy endings.

On principle I do not have an objection to crop science and bio-engineering. I think there are enough potential benefits that the risks are worth it if they can be monitored and avoided as much as possible. These big seed companies are not doing themselves any favors with their heavy handed approach. It makes them look bad to the general public, like they are trying to hide things. At some point the farmers might just get disgusted enough to say F you.

When I was an edit writer the minute you criticized Monsanto in print they were on you. Their machine for searching you out and ranting is amazing.

Linda, how interesting. Like I said, I don't know if that is frightening--or just monumentally stupid.

...And I'll be ready to sue anyone who plant "ROUND-UP READY" lawn grass seed around here. I can't imagine what we may end up sacrificing for the fetish of "lawn obsession".

"Monsanto’s rBST product, Posilac, is a supplement of the naturally occurring cow hormone BST, that when administered to cows allows them to produce more milk. Many dairy farmers use Posilac because they can produce more milk with fewer cows. The milk from treated cows is identical to milk produced by cows that are not treated. There is no laboratory anywhere in the world that can tell the difference between milk from a cow that has been treated with Posilac and milk from one that hasn’t been treated. Milk from treated cows is just as safe as milk from untreated cows. This has been affirmed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, World Health Organization, American Medical Association, American Dietetic Association and regulatory agencies in 30 countries."

I think that, in the interest of fairness, both sides of the story should be told. i like things natural, but I also realize as everyone should that hybridized seed has the potential and has eleviated hunger by increasing food crops in many impoverished countries. It also increases yield in the US and developed countries keeping adequate supplies and keeping costs lower that they would be. Growing food organically or buying organic food is absolutely a choice one should have. Realizing that there is no legitimate science that shows any nutritionla difference or harm from hybrid seeds is good to know as well. Mindlessly fighting against modern agricultural practices without educating one's self to the relevant facts is irresponsible.

Pushing for measures to restrict food supply without knowing or disclosing all the facts is unconcienable. Monsanto's defense of it's practices are simply protecting their livelihoods. If there is evidence that they are doing something harmful, it should be publicized. Companies like Monsanto spend tens of millions proving their products are safe. It is only natural when anyone makes false accusations or inuendos suggesting their products are unsafe they would be very protective of their products and reputation.

More direct to the point the statement that some milk is free of rBST is absolutely false. All milk has it and has had it forever. It is naturally produced by cows and the levels in milk from cows given more to produce better is no more or less than cows not recieving the hormone. Labeling saying cows are not treated with rBST is misleading and falsely implies the milk is somehow purer or different. It is not.

Exhibit A of that close minded pathology. Why is it that they can never bother to use a spell check?

If you can provide a link to a peer-reviewed, published study proving the safety and efficacy of Monsanto's products, I'd consider that telling both sides of the story. Linking to the company itself saying "Trust us! We come in peace!" is far from a persuasive argument.

ChristyACB said...
"Creating Round Up ready seeds is a nightmare! I don't want to eat anything sprayed directly with roundup, do you?"

How do you know you aren't? Midwest farmers have a tough time making a profit. Are they using RoundUp ready seeds to increase their margin? I think yes.

Christopher, If you are going to check my posts for typos, you will be very busy.

Perhaps since you were so concerned about my spelling you missed the comntent.

"There is no laboratory anywhere in the world that can tell the difference between milk from a cow that has been treated with Posilac and milk from one that hasn’t been treated. Milk from treated cows is just as safe as milk from untreated cows. This has been affirmed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, World Health Organization, American Medical Association, American Dietetic Association and regulatory agencies in 30 countries."

Funny, I saw no peer reviewed published study showing how unsafe or in effective Monsanto's products are in the post. I would suggest if you think you can find any peer reviewed, published study showing how the use of this product.

I looked at the USDA website and found this from 1993.

Sterile Sometribove Zinc Suspension
(Methionyl Bovine Somatotropin, POSlLAC@)
For Use in Lactating Dairy Cows
NADA 140-872
Monsanto Agricultural Company
St. Louis, MO
The Center for Veterinary Medicine has carefully considered the potential environmental
impact of this action and has concluded that this action will not have a significant effect
on the quality of the human environment and that an environmental impact statement
therefore will not be prepared."

From 1995

"The number and severity of the reported conditions raise no new animal health concerns about the safety of Posilac®. There is no indication that the drug is any less effective than labeled. In addition, FDA and State regulatory officials have found no indication of a change in the incidence of violative drug residues in milk associated with the commercial use of Posilac®.

Based on the these reports of adverse reactions to Posilac®, FDA finds no cause for concern."

You could easily have found this yourself. Perhaps you tried and failed and instead of accepting the facts felt you had to say something and replied that you expect me to provide peer reviewed, published information to prove a negative.

If you and Christopher had done a minimum of research rather than taking a stand based on emotion you would have discovered that Monsanto sold the rights to Eli Lilly and no longer manufactures the product.

Thank you to you and Christopher for proving my point that some people are ready to condemn without educating themselves to all sides of an issue.

PS- since levels of the naturally occuring recombinant bovine growth hormones are identical in milk from POSILAC and from non- POSILAC treated herds the labeling of milk as "not containing recombinant bovine growth hormone" is untrue.

Once again the only side affect from use of this product is more milk identical to any other good quality milk.

Once again, I think the adherence to the non-proven assumption that non-hybridized products are superior to hybridized products is untrue. There is zero indication that this is true despite decades of testing. If you have money to burn, go ahead and buy alternate products. It's your money, waste it wisely.

Once again opposition to the use of these products adds to the cost, reduces productivity and in the extreme limiting their use causes hunger and starvation. Having seen people starving in person, I bristle at people sitting in their comfortable homes with full bellies judging that these technologies should not be used when they have no concept of the consequences or the facts.

The comntent becomes rather irrelevant when the tone and style of delivery over powers it. A smarter person would recognize that.

Interesting, since I did no such thing there, Sparky. I simply pointed out to you that the strongest argument can be made with primary-source documents. Quoting a manufacturers' website... well, Metabolife made a lot of great claims too, no? You're the one taking a position- I would think it was up to you to bolster that argument, not me. Who says I have my mind made up one way or the other?

I think YOU illustrated that some people are too caught up in how clever they can be on teh interwebz to actually read and comprehend what other people write.

David, you imputed the information I gave you by saying it was from the company and you didn't trust it.

Your implication was that the information from the company refering to FDA, The World Health Organization, The American Medical Association, The American Diatetic Association and 30 countries regulatory bodies that have found it to be safe could not be trusted. You wanted "a peer reviewed, published study". I then gave you the source of the FDA and showed you this was resolved over 15 years ago and multiple times. I gave you the information you said you wanted. Now you say that I am being too clever for you and you despite your demand to me for peer reviewed data and impuning the information given to you initially you say you had not formed an opinion. The intelligent thing for you to do would be to investigate it on your own and find out the truth yourself. Instead you simply said my information was not good enough for you and then when given exactly what you said you needed, you claim I am acting clever and not listening.

I have a flash for you, I am not acting and I understand very well what you have written and asked for and recieved, even if you do not.

So why don't rBGH customers among the dairies label their milk, "Now with rBGH! A breakthrough product!"

Why sue people who say they don't use it, instead of advertising it, if it's so terrific that only ignorance could make a consumer avoid it?

I'm not stupid. I read newspapers every day. And if you are asking me to place my trust in industry over Mother Nature--forget it. I read the papers.

PS- i would suggest you refrain from applying nicknames. You know how clever I am.

OK, David?

If you want to require dairies to label their milk if it contains rBHG then every dairy would have to do this as ALL milk contains rBHG. If you want to require that they label the amount then they will ALL have the same amount. Organic or not rBHG is a natural hormone in all milk at exactly the same concentrations, according to the FDA, the AMA, the American Dietetic Association.

There is no repudable organization that refutes this, not one. It is simply a natural hormone that is given in higher than natural doses to increase milk production. Higher levels of it do not show up in the milk, never did. It has been used for 15 or 20 years and no difference has been shown between treated cow's milk and non-treated cow's milk. Dairies that say their milk has none are lying. Dairies that suggest only dairies that use rBGH have it in their milk are lying. Dairies that say they have less are lying. If truth in labeling is what you want all milk will be labeled as containing rBGH in exactly the same amounts.

People who believe that there is a difference are at odds with every scientific study ever done and every scientific organization of any credibility.

This is not a matter of this being my opinion, it is not my opinion, it is fact. If some adiry doesn't want to use it and you want to pay more for this milk, fine. If you think it is a different product or that the extra rBGH shows up as a greater percentage in the milk you are wrong.

I urge you not to trust the industry. I urge you not to trust me. I urge you to do your own research and you will find the facts, just as I did.

Hi Jon,
I like your logic and endorse your comments. One minor correction that may help you in dealing with those with less understanding of the area, there is no recombinant bovine growth hormone in natural cows milk. There is plenty of bovine growth hormone, but none of the recombinant variety. Recombinant means that the bovine growth hormone is derived from recombination technology, thus a cloned cDNA sequence encoding BGH. The product, BGH is identical to natural BGH as you point out. Of course, all milk contains BGH and you are absolutely correct, recombinant BGH and natural BGH are indistinguishable. I like your posts, keep up the good work!

Dr Dog

Dear Christopher,

My reply to those who trust spell checkers. You will not find a single spelling mistake in the following

Wrest a Spell

Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.

Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.

-Sauce unknown

Have a nice day

Dr Dog

"Thank you to you and Christopher for proving my point that some people are ready to condemn without educating themselves to all sides of an issue."

All I'm saying is that this statement (copied and pasted directly from your post, my friend) has nothing to do with what *I* posted. I gave you the opportunity to educate me, and you came back and lambasted me for asking for primary source material (which any good scientist/researcher will insist upon).

Scientific studies are amazing things. When one is trying to prove a point- any point- it's often possible to pull sections of the study out of context and make it say the exact opposite of what it actually proved (or disproved, or failed to disprove- if we're going to be accurate about what the scientific method really does). So you see, I don't trust what Monsanto tells me a scientist discovered; I also don't trust what Betty of Betty O'Flangans Crunchy Organic Nuggets tells me a scientist said about HER products. But I'm a reasonably educated person, so I can read a journal abstract and get a pretty good sense of where it's going, and whether or not I have to read the whole thing.

I did read the link on Monsanto's site; they don't list studies proving safety, just an absence of ones proving danger. The FDA link makes reference to some studies, done somewhere, sometime, by someone, but I'll be damned if I can find an actual citation in those interim guidelines.

I looked at your USDA cite from '93. Note that it's not an actual study, but an Environmental Assessment that draws upon data provided by the manufacturer and a review of the current scientific literature. By current I mean current for that time- most of the references were published between 1985 and 1988. More to the point, though, is the fact that it asseses the impact not on humans but on the human environment- the stability versus biodegradation of the product when released into the environment, worker exposures, and transmission to indigenous species.

Also, just so we're being clear here- your 1995 paper does not refer to health issues caused by Posilac in humans. It refers to health concerns in moo-cows injected with Prosilac. So, since I'm not too worried about my udder swelling, I don't see where this cite makes me feel better about consuming the product.

Now, there's an interesting study in PNAS by Capper, et al, that talks about rBSTs potential for decreasing the negative effects of waste from dairies. Of course, this is based upon an industrial ag application, so I wonder if it's as applicable to a smaller, more localized distribution model of farmimg (which is how I buy my milk). I've bookmarked the article so I can read it when I get the chance.

So I can appreciate that you feel it's important to research an issue before taking a stand on an issue. I do that. But when it comes to an additive without a lot of data (especially longitudinal data) about its health effects, I would tend to err on the side of staying away from it. But I'm just goofy that way, I guess.

To get back to my original point- you still need to "Show me the Data," Jon.

I sure do know how clever you are! I respond to the level at which I'm engaged. Bad habit of mine, won't happen again.

I like clever Mr. Dog. Maybe you can teach that to some people.

Thank you Dr Dog, I appreciate the correction and your insights.

You have all the time in the world to post irellevant little ditties and no time to study the facts.

The comments to this entry are closed.

And Now a Word From...

Garden Bloggers Fling

Dig It!

Find Garden Speakers At:

GardenRant Bookstore




AddThis Feed Button
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz