[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 79 (Tuesday, June 21, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          INTRODUCTION OF BOVINE GROWTH HORMONE LABELING BILL

                                 ______


                          HON. BERNARD SANDERS

                               of vermont

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 21, 1994

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be introducing national 
legislation to require the labeling of milk and dairy products produced 
with synthetic bovine growth hormones, known as rBGH. I am also pleased 
that the legislation has the support of more than 20 of my colleagues 
as well as farm and consumer organization across the Nation.
  I am pleased because no issue in recent years better illustrates the 
need for farmers and consumers to join together and take our 
agriculture and our food supply back from the chemical companies and 
multinational corporations who now dominate it.
  rBGH is a new, synthetic drug injected into cows to force them to 
produce more milk. But that is not all. rBGH makes cows sick, and it is 
going to result in higher Federal spending, lower farm income and a 
loss of family farms.
  The legislation we are introducing has three parts. It will require 
labels on milk produced with synthetic rBGH. It will require 
development of a synthetic rBGH residue test to help validate label 
claims and it will provide for an assessment on farmers who use rBGH, 
so they bear the burden of increased Federal costs that result from its 
use.
  Right now, the dairy industry is being held hostage by the Monsanto 
Co., producers of the new synthetic hormone. The overwhelming majority 
of consumers don't want synthetic rBGH. Most farmers don't want 
synthetic rBGH. But Monsanto is pushing it into the market and into our 
milk supply. In the process, they are pitting farmers against 
consumers. In fact, farmers who chose not to inject their cows with the 
new drug and who label their milk as free of synthetic rBGH are being 
slapped with law suits by the Monsanto Co. for ``misleading'' 
consumers. And finally, taxpayers and farmers are being forced to pick 
up the tab for this unnecessary and controversial drug.
  I am proud that Vermont is the first State to require labeling of 
milk produced with synthetic rBGH. Wisconsin, Minnesota and Maine have 
also passed rBGH labeling laws and other States are considering similar 
measures. A number of companies around the country have also begun 
their own voluntary labeling programs, but they all face expensive law 
suits.
  Our legislation will replace a growing patchwork of State laws and 
individual labels with a simple label that guarantees consumers the 
right to know if their milk was produced with rBGH. And it will stop 
Monsanto's strategy of intimidation and law suits.
  Let me outline some of our major concerns with this product.
  Synthetic rBGH will cause serious economic problems. The Office of 
Management and Budget estimates that dairy surpluses caused by rBGH 
will cost farmers $1.3 billion in income over the next 5 years, while 
increasing the Federal budget by more than $500 million.
  Since rBGH was introduced in February, we have seen major increases 
in milk production compared to last year. The Milwaukee Sentinel 
reported May 11, on the ``sea of new milk, triggered in part by the 
introduction of bovine growth hormone.''
  As a result, farmers are bracing for a significant drop in their milk 
prices. It is estimated that farm prices could drop by as much as $2 
per hundredweight this summer. Since the real price farmers receive for 
their milk has already declined significantly in recent years, a drop 
of $2 per hundredweight is a disaster that will mean an acceleration in 
the decline of family farms and a weakening of rural economies across 
the Nation.
  Contrary to Monsanto's assertions, there is growing evidence that an 
rBGH residue test is possible. In fact, European scientists have 
reported--Journal of Immunoassay, March 1994--using a test in their lab 
and appear to have laid the groundwork for a commercial test.
  A residue test confirms a difference in the milk of injected cows. If 
there were no difference in the milk, if there were no residue of 
synthetic hormone, there would simply be nothing to test for.
  Consumers have the right to know how their milk is produced and what 
they are consuming. Consumer polls and the action taken by State 
legislatures, clearly underscore very strong consumer support for 
labeling synthetic rBGH milk. Right now consumers are being robbed of 
that right. I am concerned that consumers that do not want to ingest 
milk produced from cows injected with synthetic BGH feel that they are 
left with no choice but to avoid milk. We should be promoting worry-
free milk consumption. I think Congress should take action to restore 
it.
  Other countries are responding to their consumers. Today, a member of 
the Canadian Parliament, Wayne Easter, who is an active member of the 
Agriculture Committee, former president of the National Farmers Union, 
and a dairy farmer, asked me to send a copy of this legislation to him 
so he could present it to the Canadian Minister of Agriculture as a 
possible solution to the strong negative reaction of Canadian consumers 
to synthetic rBGH.
  Synthetic rBGH injections make cows sick. This is shown in rBGH 
trials and confirmed by the FDA and the GAO. The POSILAC--synthetic 
rBGH--label lists a variety [20] of adverse side effects. It also warns 
that using synthetic rBGH may result in the use of more antibiotics, 
increasing the risk of antibiotics ending up in consumers' milk. The 
FDA calls this a manageable risk. The question is, why we are taking 
any risk at all for a drug that no one, other than the Monsanto Co., 
needs or wants.
  The entire FDA review of rBGH provides a classic example of why the 
American public is losing faith in the ability of the Federal 
Government to protect their interests over those of big business. The 
GAO is currently conducting a review of possible conflicts of interest 
and bias at the FDA involving its review of Monsanto's product. 
Earlier, in 1992 the Monsanto Co. was found to have repeatedly violated 
the Federal laws prohibiting promotion of a new animal drug before its 
approval. The inspector general is now completing another review of 
continued violations of that law and we expect it will show that 
Monsanto continued to violate the law even after warnings by the FDA.
  The great majority of American dairy farmers do their very best to 
provide consumers with pure and wholesome milk and dairy products that 
they can buy and use with confidence. But this tradition is threatened.
  On the one hand we have the Monsanto Co. looking for profits at any 
cost. On the other hand we have farmers and consumers asking Congress 
to take action on their behalf.
  Outside the beltway the choice is clear. It is our hope now that the 
Congress will join with us in taking this simple but very important 
action in support of both farmers and consumers.

                          ____________________