rBGH: does it do a body good?
After reading Chris' latest post at One Finger..., I was inspired to write a related piece that had been on my mind lately.
Chris' piece was mainly on fraudulent research projects and the lack of an effective system to monitor & punish fraudulent researchers.
I'm a big proponent of raw & organic foods, and after recently getting on the bad side of some foul organic milk, I started some more research into how & when milk becomes tainted.
Normally, a cow will produce milk for approximately 12 weeks after giving birth. Farmers that produce commercially sold milk give their cattle rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone) to double this period of milk production & get twice the milk from the same number of cattle. Cattle that are on rBGH are at an increased risk for mastitis, and an infected cow is likely to produce infected milk. Risk of producing infected milk rises by nearly 80%.
The FDA has approved the use of rBGH in cattle because studies have identify that 'no significant difference has been shown between milk from treated and untreated cows'.
Who conducted these studies? Mostly Monsanto enployed scientists. What else do we get from Monsanto? Prosilac, the drug containing the rBGH that milk farmers give their cattle.
As Chris points out, as there are not enough resources for us to investigate all of Dr. Chandra's research projects, there are not nearly enough resources for the FDA to conduct its own unbiased research on all the food additives & food related products that are introduced every year. Placing the burden of proof on the manufacturer of each product is a great solution. However, if we also allow the manufacturer to evaluate that proof then the system is useless. Monsanto (& every other food product manufacturer) is able to fund, design, staff & conduct all their own research, and then to interpret the results of that research themselves.
Having no way of consistently distinguishing fraudulent research from valid research not only harms the credibility of responsible scientists, the impact of fraudulent research puts every one of the general population at potential risk.
Chris' piece was mainly on fraudulent research projects and the lack of an effective system to monitor & punish fraudulent researchers.
I'm a big proponent of raw & organic foods, and after recently getting on the bad side of some foul organic milk, I started some more research into how & when milk becomes tainted.
Normally, a cow will produce milk for approximately 12 weeks after giving birth. Farmers that produce commercially sold milk give their cattle rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone) to double this period of milk production & get twice the milk from the same number of cattle. Cattle that are on rBGH are at an increased risk for mastitis, and an infected cow is likely to produce infected milk. Risk of producing infected milk rises by nearly 80%.
The FDA has approved the use of rBGH in cattle because studies have identify that 'no significant difference has been shown between milk from treated and untreated cows'.
Who conducted these studies? Mostly Monsanto enployed scientists. What else do we get from Monsanto? Prosilac, the drug containing the rBGH that milk farmers give their cattle.
As Chris points out, as there are not enough resources for us to investigate all of Dr. Chandra's research projects, there are not nearly enough resources for the FDA to conduct its own unbiased research on all the food additives & food related products that are introduced every year. Placing the burden of proof on the manufacturer of each product is a great solution. However, if we also allow the manufacturer to evaluate that proof then the system is useless. Monsanto (& every other food product manufacturer) is able to fund, design, staff & conduct all their own research, and then to interpret the results of that research themselves.
Having no way of consistently distinguishing fraudulent research from valid research not only harms the credibility of responsible scientists, the impact of fraudulent research puts every one of the general population at potential risk.
