[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 35 (Thursday, March 24, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                 WHY MILK WITH rBGH NEEDS TO BE LABELED

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about the entire 
process by which the FDA approved Monsanto's rBGH, as well as their 
recently published labeling guidelines. The Food and Drug 
Administration can only blame itself for the growing opposition to 
Monsanto's bovine growth hormone rBGH, the synthetic drug that will 
force cows to produce 20 percent more milk than they naturally do.
  FDA says they found rBGH safe. More accurately, they found that rBGH 
is a manageable risk. Unfortunately, it is an unnecessary risk that 
comes with no benefits. FDA says that no significant difference has 
been found between the milk from cows treated with rBGH and untreated 
cows. They don't say that rBGH treatments do change the composition of 
milk, and do result in synthetic rBGH residues in milk.
  FDA takes the position that rBGH milk can't be labeled because there 
is no way to test for rBGH residues. Why not? The American Medical 
Association's Scientific Advisory Council states, matter of factly, 
that a test could be devised to detect synthetic rBGH in the milk from 
rBST treated animals. Other independent scientists also say an rBGH 
residue test can be developed. Why hasn't FDA required it? Because 
Monsanto knows that, given the choice, consumers will reject milk 
produced with synthetic hormones.
  Sadly, the FDA's new labeling guidance not only discourages labeling, 
it has become the basis for Monsanto's lawsuits against companies who 
want to label. Monsanto lawyers have gone so far as to enclose the 
FDA's guidelines in letters threatening legal action against companies 
who label their products as free of rBGH.
  Imagine: farmers being sued for telling consumers that they are not 
using a synthetic hormone--a hormone that FDA admits presents a risk to 
consumers and a health threat to cows.
  FDA generally must find an animal drug safe and effective for its 
intended use. But rBGH, when used as directed, makes cows sicker--the 
drug's own label says so. In addition to significant increases in 
clinical mastitis, an udder infection that results in ``visibly 
abnormal milk,'' the label for Monsanto's rBGH product, Posilac, cites 
reduced pregnancy rates, increases in cystic ovaries, disorders of the 
uterus, increases in retained placenta, digestive disorders, disorders 
of the foot, and increased body temperature among the problems caused 
by rBGH treatments. It also says that rBGH will result in ``increased 
use of antibiotics in cows.'' FDA days don't worry. Take the risk.
  Is rBGH worth the risk? Remember that rBGH is purely a production 
drug. It has no therapeutic or social value. It does not cure a disease 
or solve a health problem. It just makes cows produce more milk--at a 
time when we already have a surplus of milk.
  Nor have all the questions about safety to humans been settled. The 
Consumer Policy Institute of Consumers Union (publishers of Consumer 
Reports magazine) wrote FDA in May 1993, questioning among other things 
the possible effects of BGH on human health via its effects on the 
substance IGF-1. FDA did not respond to their letter.
  You can't blame consumers and farmers for wondering why FDA has 
consistently failed to respond to serious questions about the rBGH 
review process, and why the Agency has chosen to put the financial 
interests of a huge chemical company above the interests of the public.
  There should be no question but that consumers have the right to know 
if their milk and dairy products were produced with synthetic growth 
hormones. And there is no doubt that FDA is cooperating with Monsanto 
to rob consumers of that right. Consumers, more and more aware of what 
they eat and how their food is produced have, in consumer survey after 
consumer survey, voiced overwhelming opposition to adding synthetic 
bovine growth hormone to their milk supply. That concern must not be 
ignored.
  The FDA, in dealing with Monsanto, has shown itself incapable of 
protecting the needs of consumers and family farmers. It appears that 
State governments will have to do what the FDA has not done. I'm very 
proud that the State of Vermont has led the way in protecting consumer 
rights by recently passing legislation which will require the labelling 
of all milk products from cows injected with rBGH. Hopefully, other 
States and the U.S. Congress will soon follow.
  Until the questions are answered, consumers and farmers should 
beware. And milk from rBGH treated cows should be labelled.

                              {time}  2110

  Mr. Speaker, there are many other unanswered questions about rBGH, 
But I think the American people have the right to demand that the FDA 
support the right of companies and farmers to label their product very 
clearly as not coming from rBGH-infected cows.

                          ____________________