5
Stop belching, Bessie! You're ruining the environment!
What a riot! How complex is a story about:
- The genetically engineered bovine growth hormone, somatotropin, trade name Posilac...
- which is not approved for use in Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, or New Zealand...
- whose 1993 FDA approval led to the dismissal of several questioning FDA scientists that wanted more test data given the paucity of data given to support the approval...
- which Monsanto claims reduces both methane (from dairy cow belching and farting -- mind you, the first far exceeds the latter) and energy use generally from efficient feeding...
- and the discussion of which raises more fart jokes than a Cub Scout camping trip?
The research paper, which I could not find, was co-authored by a researcher from the venerable Cornell University but apparently co-authored by a Monsanto consultant and employee. Can anyone say bias? I found the core inconsistency on Monsanto's own web site which says that "[r]esponses to POSILAC are greatest when quality feed is available for consumption at least 20 hours a day." So, how can it be that a herd, laden with somatotropin, would require less food when the cow obviously has to be chowing down almost 24-7?
Judith Capper of Cornell claims that "switching a million cows onto somatotropin would lead to savings equivalent to removing 400,000 family cars from the U.S. roads." Well, that's a treat! How about creating electricity with cow manure? Or using energy efficient lights in the outrageously energy-intensive dairy industry? Or find new fuels for transport of the raw milk to processing plants which are now going half full?
Fluid milk production is not just about the cows (opens PDF). It's about using large tracts of land for production, the use of nutritionally poor ryegrass which gives cows indigestion (belching + farts = methane), and cooling and refrigeration along a continuum of growing food, housing and feeding of cows. Other farm-centric studies mention changing diets of the ruminants (their 4 stomachs digest food as opposed to humans' gnarly intestines), water conservation measures, free cooling during winter months (this offer does not apply in Hawaii), heat recovery, boiler efficiency controls and adjustable speed drives on ventilation fans.
Bottom line is that Monsanto is under tremendous pressure for its very aggressive tactics with farmers over its weed and feed products (they spy on and then sue small farmers), its shop-worn excuses for not being upfront about labeling its genetically engineered products (if it's safe then why worry about labeling?)
and of course it's perennially under fire for Posilac which Monsanto admits gives cows mastitis and may also contribute to human cancers because it increases the hormone Insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1).
There's no argument that methane is a serious contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Even Estonia is taxing farmers (image at right from Cape Cod Today) for their cow's sins, and you can still download Kelly Ripa on Saturday Night Live in the Center for Cow Fart Study skit, a testament that the issue must be real.
It's good to read stories with real information about hormones being put into our food. I'm an intern right now working on the movie, "Battle in Seattle" about the 1999 World Trade Organization protests. In '99, and in the film, the issue of genetically engineered food is brought up. It's such a critical issue in today's times. We need to be more aware of what we're eating. The research I've done working on the film has taught me so much. There are a few sites being put together (some have just launched) about some of these issues - www.starbuckers.org talks about corporations like Starbucks investing in free trade coffee and www.whocontrolstheworld.com talks about free trade and how to increase production, hormones are used - all for the benefit of the top few percent of wealthy people in the world but harming everyone along the way. The movie site is www.battleinseattle.com
Thanks for posting this story!
That dairy farmers use the Monsanto hormone, and that the US doesn't regulate it, isn't puzzling. That an entire <a href="http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn14225-can-a-cow-hormone-he... rel="nofollow">article</a> about it -- and that it's being accused of greenwash -- doesn't address the underlying issues is puzzling, at least to me.
Ok, not surprising, but frustrating.
Partly, if you read to the end of the article, the FDA "did not agree with Monsanto's claim that the hormone makes animals use feed more efficiently." If the federal government is pointing out greenwash, my job here is done.
Mostly, having thought about the sustainability of my food for 17 years, I'm sure that the production of most American beef [meat] is not sustainable, and any claim that it is sustainable plays into our consumer wish for cheap food. Is it just just my anti-hormone Luddite character coming out? Possible, but I'm sure American meat consumption is not sustainable - and any attempts by Monsanto to facilitate our wishful thinking is, well, a new approach to greenwashing.
Beef (and most American meat) is fed corn - a crop raised with lots of (unsustainable) irrigation and (unsustainable) fertilizers. Unsustainable irrigation and fertilizers push the real cost of meat off of the producers and consumers onto the environment - the price is paid through global warming, dry wells, and the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.
There are exceptions - dairy and meat producers who bear those costs themselves, producing grass-fed, free-range dairy (and meat) products. Those costs are passed on to the minority of consumers who are willing to pay higher prices or who offset those higher prices by eating less.
Is Monsanto's employee/consultant-written report that claims their hormone results in greener milk than hormone-free milk reliable? No. Can our wish to eat as much cheap, sustainable dairy come true? Nope.
I produced a 4-minute pilot episode of a children's cartoon called <a href= "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GKZJkYIjvY" rel="nofollow">"Cow-a-dunga!"</a> that addresses methane flatulance and eructation (but in a funny way...).
Even content produced for kids has to struggle with the technology fix vs consumption habits debate.
In an early version of the script, I had the heroine invent a diaper (ok, we focused on the farting...) that filtered the CH4. Ultimately, we dropped the plot device in favor of a simpler plea to go free-range and consume less meat/dairy.
Why in this blog is there absolutely no mention of giving milk up completely? There is no nutritional requirement for humans to consume cow's milk. Just think about it: we're the only mammals that consume milk past childhood and we're the only mammals that drink another animal's milk. Cow's milk is for calves, not humans. Casein, a protein found in milk, is highly carcinogenic. Read The China Study.
In addition, if you buy milk, you're directly supporting the veal industry. Dairy cows have to be pregnant in order to produce milk. Within 24 hours of their calves being born, they are ripped away from their mothers. Female cows become dairy cows and male cows get crated, fed an iron deficient diet, and are sold for veal in 16 weeks. This happens even at organic dairies.
The dairy industry is incredibly inhumane. It's no wonder it's destroying our planet.
