Brandon Turbeville
Updated excerpt from Codex Alimentarius -- The End of Health Freedom

With the current controversy surrounding the
government crackdown on wholesome, organic, and locally produced
milk, it is important to understand the products we are being pushed toward,
as well as those we are being pushed away from. While the benefits of
organic and raw milk is largely undeniable when compared to the industrially
produced substitute, the dangers of the latter are not discussed quite as
frequently. Of these dangers, rBGH is a central figure.
Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (also known
as Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin) is a genetically engineered hormone that
is injected into cows for the purpose of increasing milk production.[1]
It is derived from bovine somatotropin (bST) which is a hormone that is
produced naturally in the cattle by the pituitary gland. This hormone is very
important for growth and development, as well as other functions of the
animal’s body.
Sometime in the 1930s it was discovered that
injecting cattle with bST increased milk production. However, because bST is
produced in the animal itself, the only source available was in the pituitary
glands of the slaughtered cattle. Genetic engineering thus came into play.
By removing the bovine
gene which controls the production of bST and inserting it into a bacterium
called Escherichia Coli (E. Coli), scientists and manufacturers are able to
reproduce large amounts of bST. This is due to the fact that E. Coli
replicates in the human intestinal tract where it is originally found.
Essentially, it acts as an industrial unit for the production of bST.
This Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) is then injected into the cattle
where it replicates causing an increase in milk production.[2] This
concept of genetic combination is the foundation for the name “Recombinant”
Growth Hormone or Bovine Somatotropin.
As with any GM food,
there are very serious health problems associated with the use of rBGH that
affect both humans and the animals that are injected with it. Cows who receive
the hormone, in addition to the deplorable conditions in which they already
find themselves[3], often develop a condition called mastitis, an extremely
painful inflammation of the mammary glands.
Of the two forms of
mastitis (infectious and non-infectious) non-infectious mastitis accounts for
only 1% of the cases in existence and is mainly a result of some kind of
injury. The other 99% are a result of infections largely due to bacteria
produced by the animals’ living conditions and the rBGH they receive.
There are subsequently
four categories of mastitis: peracute, acute, subacute, and subclinical. Of
the four, subclinical is the most difficult to diagnose due to the lack of
visible physical symptoms.[4] For the most part, it is detected by
somatic cell counts.[5]
However, the three other
forms of mastitis do render physical symptoms with the peracute form the most
pronounced. In this instance the cow’s bag become swollen, red, hot, and/or
sensitive to the touch. This is extremely painful to the affected animal since
she is being continuously milked by automatic machines and dragging her bag
across the floor as she moves in what little space there is. The animal may
also suffer from a fever, depression, shivering, rapid weight loss, lack of
appetite and even death.
Symptoms may be slightly
less obvious or pronounced in the other forms of mastitis, yet they are all
part of the same condition which is becoming more and more prevalent not just
in dairy cows but in beef herds as well.[6] Due to lack of appetite and
reduced nutrition as a result of constant milking (in the case of dairy
cows)[7] the
amount of milk produced from the animals affected in this way becomes
significantly smaller. Likewise, beef herds injected with the chemical tend to
be 7% to 12.5% smaller in terms of weight.
Ironically, a hormone
injected into animals to make them more productive for dairy and beef often
causes a condition which reduces their output in both categories.[8]
Even in animals who manage to avoid chronic cases of infection, the milk yield
as a result of rBGH only increases by 11.3% to 15.6%.[9]
Yet the increased rate of
mastitis is not the only injury to the animals as a result of rBGH. The
Canadian Veterinary Medical Association Expert Panel conducted a review of the
use of rBGH in dairy cows and reported that incidents of lameness increased by
as much as 50% in animals treated with the hormone. The report also noted that
sterility (or non-pregnancy) as well as culling was significantly increased as
well. Twinning, placenta retention, and abortion/fetal loss were also
considered and acknowledged as potential side effects of hormone treatment.
[10]
Yet the damage caused by rBGH does not stop
with animals injected with it. The repercussions of adding rBGH to dairy cows
extend all the way up the food chain to the humans that consume the milk they
produce. More will be said about the effects of rBGH on
humans in future articles. However, the effects
produced in the animals and the cruelty issue alone should be enough to
warrant a boycott of milk produced using rBGH.
Sources:
[1] “Bovine Somatotropin,” Iowa State University, p.1 http://www.biotech.iastate.edu/biotech_info_series/Bovine_Somatotropin.html
[2] Ibid.
[3] A good documentary regarding the conditions of animals in large manufacturing plants is called “Earthlings.”
[4] “Mastitis in Beef Cows – Frequently Asked Questions” Government of Alberta, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/faq8106
[5] Section 7.2 “Report of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association Expert Panel on rBST.” http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/vet/issues-enjeux/rbst-stbr/rep_cvma-rap_acdv_tc-tm-eng.php
[6] “Mastitis in Beef Cows – Frequently Asked Questions” Government of Alberta, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/faq8106
[7] “The Issues: Artificial Hormones.” Sustainabletable.org http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/hormones/ Accessed May 24, 2010.
[8] Ibid.
[9] “Report of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association Expert Panel on rBST.” Conclusions and Recommendations. Health Canada. November 1998. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/vet/issues-enjeux/rbst-stbr/rep_cvma-rap_acdv_14-eng.php Accessed May 17, 2010.
[10] “Report of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association Expert Panel on rBST,” Health Canada. November, 1998. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/vet/issues-enjeux/rbst-stbr/rep_cvma-rap_acdv_tc-tm-eng.php
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/05/rbgh-milk-production-animal-cruelty.html