Creators Syndicate

FIGHT BACK!  BY DAVID HOROWITZ 

        Would you drink milk from dairy cows treated with a  synthetic
growth hormone? That question has divided  government regulators, milk
producers and consumer groups on  the issue of food purity and safety. 
        The hormone, known variously as Bovine Growth Hormone  and
Bovine Somatotropin, is a genetically engineered variant  of the
natural growth hormone found in all cattle. It is  injected into dairy
cows to increase milk production. Higher  production means lower
producer costs and, eventually, lower  retail milk prices. 
        BGH has been available to dairy farmers since February.  But
many have refused to use it because of widespread  concerns about its
safety. Fearing a consumer backlash  against milk, a number of major
producers in Colorado have  asked members of the Western Dairymen
Cooperative not to use  the hormone until all questions about BGH have
been an-swered  once and for all. 
        Critics of BGH use are vague about exactly what it is  they
fear. They believe the hormone has not been adequately  studied and
that we really don't know what effect it may have  on human health,
especially in children. The danger, they  say, is in what we don't know
about genetically altered  hormones in food. 
        On the other side of the argument are the Food and Drug 
Administration, independent food scientists, the American  Medical
Association and Monsanto, which manufactures BGH.  They all insist that
the hormone poses absolutely no risk to  human health. Among their
arguments: 
        -- BGH is chemically identical to the growth hormone  that
occurs naturally in cattle, meat and milk. 
        -- Injecting cows with BGH does not elevate hormone  levels in
the milk they produce. 
        -- These growth hormones are specific to cattle. They  have no
effect on human growth or metabolism. 
        -- BGH is a protein-based hormone -- not steroid-based. 
        -- The growth hormone, like other components of milk,  meat and
dairy foods, is broken down and eliminated as part  of the normal
digestive process. 
        But these arguments have not put the issue to rest.  Questions
persist: How much of what we "know" about BGH is  proven scientific
fact, and how much is theory? How much of  the evidence is influenced
by the economic interests of the manufacturers and producers who stand
to benefit by the use  of BGH? 
        The obvious compromise is to leave it up to us to  choose.
Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy says consumers should  be given "the
benefit of the doubt" and informed on the label  if the milk comes from
cows treated with BGH. The state of  Vermont recently passed a labeling
law requiring such  disclosure. Dairy cooperatives in Iowa and Texas
are now  labeling their milk "BGH-Free." (Monsanto is suing those 
producers for allegedly implying that milk from cows treated  with BGH
is less safe than milk from non-treated cows.) 
        Personally, I'm in favor of giving consumers all the 
information they need to make choices. But there is also the  danger
that labeling will become a cop-out -- an excuse for  government
regulators to wash their hands of a controversial  issue and not pursue
answers to the real questions about BGH. 
        If you have questions or comments, please write to David 
Horowitz at 72662,1775. COPYRIGHT 1994 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.