By: Jack Lord
When I see a warning label on a product, such as on nicotine or beer, I’ve always thought that it was there to educate and protect the consumer, even if it would end up being harmful towards the business which sells the product. But not all warning labels work in this way. In fact, one Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-required warning label exists to protect the interests of big business, at the expense of other farmers and potentially even the consumer.
Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rBST) is a synthetic bovine growth hormone used to increase the milk production of a dairy cow. Commercial sale of rBST for use in dairy cows began in 1994 after it was approved by the FDA for the aforementioned reason. Interestingly, dairy products that were produced from cows given rBST were not required to inform the consumer of their use of the compound. Products from cows that were not treated with rBST were allowed to inform consumers that their product is rBST-free, though a warning label must accompany this claim with the statement that, “no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBST-treated and non-rBST-treated cows”. They also could not simply label it as “rBST-free.” Rather, they could say “from cows not treated with rBST”.
The FDA had a quite different reaction to rBST use in dairy cows compared to other countries. The European Union as well as Canada, Japan, and other countries have banned its use in domestic dairy cattle. For transparency, I wish to specify that in the case of the EU, their ban was put in place for issues relating to the health of cattle rather than human health.
For the moment, I wish to ignore any possible health risks of rBST use for either cattle or humans. Let’s assume there is no quality difference in the milk produced. The regulation in place only acts to limit consumer knowledge about the products they buy. There is no direct claim about rBST made when milk is labeled “from cows not treated with rBST,” as it simply tells the consumer that rBST was not given to the cow whose milk is being sold. The FDA would counter this, however, with the argument that the labeling, which informs the consumer of the non-usage of rBST in its production, is still misleading as it can imply to some that the milk is of a different quality than that of rBST treated milk.
This seems to be an unsatisfactory reason to require a warning label. Using the same line of thought, the uninformed consumer could find milk that is produced from cows given rBST and because there is no label informing them of rBST use, believe no synthetic growth hormone was given to the cow. Given any form of labeling, people can believe that the words imply something else. In any case, I find it far more misleading to not inform the consumer that a drug was used on an animal, then to inform a consumer that a drug was not used.
The debate on rBST labelling connects to a larger societal issue since the advent of modern biotechnology; should those who are using new biotechnologies be the ones responsible to convince others that their products are of the same quality, or should it be forced upon the consumer? In the case of rBST, the biotechnology was forced upon the consumer, rather than producers making their case of its efficiency without sacrificing health outcomes. I am of the opinion that cases such as that of rBST actually increase skepticism towards the use of potentially beneficial biotechnologies.
For example, suppose that it was those who use rBST on their cows who had the role of convincing consumers their product was just as safe as it would be without its use. They could be very outright in informing the consumer of the use of the compound and supply them with readings, designed to be read by a general American audience, showing its safety. Also, since rBST allows farmers to produce more milk, it would be a cheaper product incentivizing its purchase. I believe that if new biotechnologies were rolled out in a way similar to how I have described, you would see a far greater acceptance of them from the public than it is now.
This argument so far has been based on the assumption that there are no increased health risks for cattle or humans. However, the health risks of rBST use for cattle are well documented. rBST is documented to increase the risk of clinical mastitis, an inflammatory disease which damages the mammary gland and udder tissue. Antibiotics are used to treat this. This increased usage of antibiotics increases the probability of bacteria which are resistant to antibiotics, limiting the effectiveness of these drugs. Additionally, this can lead to antibiotic resistant bacteria or antibiotic residues to be found in milk, which has the potential to limit the effectiveness of antibiotics for humans. Additionally, rBST usage can increase the risk of lameness in cows. This condition caused by foot and leg disorders is extremely painful to the cows, decreasing their overall welfare.
Remember, the reason the FDA enforced the warning label for those who advertise that they do not use rBST on their cows is to prevent consumers from making false assumptions about the drug. Well, it is also reasonable, given the warning label, that one would make the false assumption there is no significant difference in welfare for rBST and non-rBST treated cows. After all, it is reasonable to think prima facie that if a cow’s welfare is worse, then their milk quality will decline. Therefore, if they are told the milk quality is the same, then they conclude their welfare is similar. This false assumption that could be gathered on reasonable grounds from the warning label shows that it also leads to the consumer being misled. Also, when it comes to the effect of rBST on human health the evidence is better to be seen as inconclusive rather than identical to that of milk from non-rBST treated cows as potential health concerns remain.
Finally, I also wish to point out that rBST was brought to the market by Monsanto. Though I have no evidence of any wrongdoing by Monsanto in the case of rBST, Monsanto developed and brought to market Roundup, a product containing glyphosate. Though the company was acquired by Bayer, over $10 billion will be paid in settling lawsuits involving glyphosate’s effect on human health. I bring this up to highlight that Monsanto is a company that has created products which are damaging to human health and lied to the public about their effect. I cannot make a claim that Monsanto had done this in the case of rBST, but their prior known actions suggest they would be willing to in order to see increased profit.
This leads me to the conclusion that the warning label forced onto producers who specify their milk comes from cows not treated with rBST is unnecessary. There are legitimate concerns stemming from the use of rBST and the warning label does not prevent the consumer from being misled about the compound, but rather redirects them to be misled that there are no concerns to be found. I believe moving forward this warning label should no longer be required and instead the usage of rBST on dairy cows be transparently informed to the consumer by the producers who choose to use the compound.