Real, Live Milking Machines

Jessica Potter

On the edge of campus, past the colorful gardens of the Orfaleea College of Business, beyond the recreation fields covered with students playing Frisbee or catch, and off busy Highland Drive is the unpaved Mt. Bishop Road. Mt. Bishop Road is home to the crops unit, campus orchards, veterinary unit, and the Eugene and Rachel Boone Dairy Science Complex, more familiarly known as the Cal Poly Dairy. Walking through the dairy on a sunny Tuesday afternoon, I am greeted by fifteen or so calves chained to oversized dog houses called “hutches.” Petting them as they attempt to suck on my pants, I look up to see their mothers in the long cages just a few feet away. It is hard to leave the doe eyes of the Jersey calves, but I move on to the rows of enormous Holsteins. It is the late afternoon and their udders are filled to the brim with milk. The weight of ten bowling balls hangs from their bodies making their locomotion slow and awkward. The cow’s milking time is from four to six in the afternoon. Automatic milking systems milk the hundreds of cows quickly and efficiently.

I wonder if all that milk is due to the genetically engineered hormone, rBST, which increases the milk production in the cow. rBST is a man made reproduction of the cow’s natural growth hormone, Bovine Somatropin (BST). Economically the increase in milk supply caused by the hormone could lower prices on dairy foods, an appealing attribute to consumers, and feed more people with fewer cows than ever before. As I watch these dinosaur-like creatures stand motionless, I cannot help thinking my new friends on the other side of this gate do not benefit from this injected hormone in the least.

Bovine Somatropin is naturally activated when a cow is about to give birth.[1] Experiments reproducing the lactation hormone in cows for economic purposes have been recorded as early as 1934.[2] The genetically engineered hormone is named Recombinant Bovine Somatropin (rBST). It is made by extracting the BST gene from a cow’s DNA. The gene is “transferred to the genetic code of a common strain of bacteria which rapidly multiplies and produces large quantities of BST. The bacteria is then destroyed and the BST is isolated.”[3] Injecting rBST into cows makes their lactation that of a reproducing cow even when barren. The agricultural genetic engineering company, Monsanto Co., began manufacturing rBST in 1989. Their product is called POSILAC and is sold to dairies throughout the world, including the dairy at Cal Poly.

At Cal Poly, rBST is used selectively on the dairy cows. Three factors are taken into account before a Cal Poly cow is put on rBST. The first is its flesh. If a cow is too thin, its body will automatically reject the hormone. The second is where a cow is in its lactation cycle. A cow is taken off of the hormone if it is expecting a calf because it will already have high lactation for feeding its baby. About 60 to 90 days after birth, the cow begins to receive the hormone again. The final factor is a cow’s reproductive history. If it is lactating in large amounts for a long period of time, it will not reproduce. A cow is an animal that needs to have a calf every year in order to be a healthy milk producer. Cal Poly is currently sponsored by Monsanto Co., receiving 100,000 dollars a year for the dairy science program.[4]

It took ten years of testing for the FDA to approve Monsanto Co.’s commercial sale of POSILAC, but just after approval in 1993, congress prohibited the sales for ninety days. Such a controversy was stirred among dairy producers and manufacturers that congress wanted a period of time for the dairy industry to decide if they wanted to use rBST. It also gave the United States Office of Management and Budget time to study the possible economic effects of rBST.[5] The Clinton Administration was inclined to research the effect on the economy as well and determined that “rBST was not expected to cause significant reduction in milk and dairy product demand and that there would be a positive net economic effect.”[6] Senator Russell Feingold argued against the results of the Clinton Administration’s study stating, “farmers, consumers, the federal budget and rural communities could be badly affected,”[7] the biggest fear being that small dairy producers would no longer be competitive in the market.

According to studies by the University of Wisconsin, the University of Massachusetts, and the National Milk Producers Association, the possible profit for dairy producers, including the costs of feed and rBST, would be approximately $44 to $83 per cow, per lactation cycle.[8] Use of POSILAC increases cow’s milk production at an average of 8.5 pounds per lactation, or an additional 2,200 pounds of milk a year.[9] A single herd’s milk production can rise 10% to 25%.[10] Economically speaking, this increase could potentially “lower milk production costs 30% to 40%.”[11] In order to combat this overflow of milk, the government would have to lower the price supports on dairy products which would be beneficial to consumers, but detrimental to dairy producers, especially small farmers.[12]

Most consumers are not as concerned with the economical effects of rBST as they are with the health factor associated with using the hormone. Bovine Somatropin is detected in dairy products like milk and cheese, and also in beef.[13] There has been no detection of any difference between BST and rBST in these products. The FDA does not require labels on dairy and beef products stating whether or not rBST was used on the cows that produced the food. For those companies who wish to label their food, “cows not treated with rBST,” they must also include, “no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBST treated and non rBST treated cows.”[14] When producers do label their food, they have no proof that their suppliers have not used rBST. The suppliers sign a contract, but it is based on trust.

rBST continues to be the most controversial issue in the FDA’s history, though many in the biotech food industry like to believe it has died down. Anti-rBST websites have hundreds of articles all aimed at discrediting Monsanto Co. Titles like, “More on Monsanto and FDA Attack on rBGH-Free Diaries” and, “Fox News Continues Persecution of Reporters Who Exposed Network Lies on Monsanto's rBGH”[15] are strewn across the computer screen. These articles appeal to the emotions of the reader, not only by going after major companies and the FDA, but by addressing the cows affected as “she” and “her.” No longer is the cow just another dirty animal on a farm, but an individual, and a woman who needs protection. “The modern U.S. dairy cow is under many stresses, even before she may be poked with Monsanto’s biotech hormone to induce greater milk output.”[16]

The safety of using rBST has been as big an issue as the economic effects. How cows can handle the stress of producing milk at such high levels is questioned. Tests have shown that there is no significant difference in the lifespan of an rBST cow compared to that of a naturally high lactating cow. One of the negative effects of the hormone include a 33% higher risk of a cow getting mastitis, an udder infection, due to the use of rBST. Mastitis can lead to an increase in puss produced by the cow that could end up in the milk. Congress’ General Accounting office was afraid that this increase in infection would force dairy producers to use more antibiotics that would also end up in the milk.[17]

Opponents argue that the FDA has not done adequate testing of the drug and that their results are flawed. Studies show that thirty percent more blood is pumped through the cow’s hearts and that the hormone is so strong that the muscle tissue at the spot of injection is killed.[18] In 1990 a paper, called The Milkweed, published stolen Monsanto Co. research files on animal health. A great increase in size and weight of key organs was shown compared to those of the control group.[19] Reproductive disorders and poor quality of life have also been associated with the hormone.

The public’s reaction to the growth hormone has been consistently negative, mostly due to the ethical issues of using the hormone. A 1990 poll done by the University of Vermont found that 41% to 50% of those polled would reduce or stop buying dairy completely if rBST was used, even when the hormone was spoken of positively.[20] In 2002 the British Food Journal published an article stating that only 9.1% of those polled in Europe felt that the hormone was “ethically acceptable,” while 59.7% felt the European Union should not approve its use. Studies conducted by Jeremy Foltz, an assistant professor of agriculture and applied economics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Tirtha Dhar, a research associate with the Food System Research Group, found that in 12 metropolitan markets consumers would pay up to $1.50 per gallon of milk more for milk labeled rBST-free[21]. More locally, in 2000 a Cal Poly student conducted a survey in Napa, Marin, San Francisco, and Sonoma County grocery stores. A vast majority, 62%, had never heard of BST. The unfavorable or extremely unfavorable response was 49%. [22]

When I think of cows in California, instantly “Happy cows come from California” comes to mind. The commercials portray smiling cows on a sunny afternoon in a rolling, luscious green meadow. When I open my eyes there is no meadow, just rows of cows behind jail cell gates, trapped, with only their daily rations to comfort them. The dairy industry is no longer Old MacDonald’s farm, but rather CEO Smith’s corporation. Cows are no longer individuals with names like Anna or Big Mama, but are machines named by gene pool. Milk is one of my favorite dairy products and it would take a lot for me to give it up. I am with the majority on this issue, I do not feel that rBST is ethical or safe enough to use in our dairies. Pushing small farmers out of business and forcing cows to produce more than they were born to is wrong, no matter how low prices for my beloved milk may get.

Works Cited

1) Aggio, Joanne M. “BST: The consumer perceptions and effects on the sale of dairy products in the Napa, Marin, San Francisco and Sonoma Counties.” Senior Project-Agribusiness (2000).

2) Berning, Leanne. Personal interview. 8 Nov. 2004.

3) Boisvert, Richard N., Harry M. Kaiser, and Fude Wang. "US dairy policy alternatives under Bovine Somatropin." Applied Economics 26 (1994): 283-296. 16 Nov. 2004 <http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=309&VInst=PROD&VName=PQD&VType=PQD&sid=2&index=8&SrchMode=1&Fmt=2&did=000000000867827&clientId=17870>.

4) Hardin, Peter. "What Are Monsanto and the FDA Hiding Regarding Controversial Cow
Hormone?" The Capital Times 2 Feb. 2004. 1 Dec. 2004
<http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbgh/fda020504.cfm>.

5) Mephaim, T B., et al. "Consumer attitudes to the use of two dairy technologies."

British Food Journal 104 (2002): 34-48. 16 Nov. 2004 <http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=309&VInst=PROD&VName=PQD&VType=PQD&sid=2&index=2&SrchMode=1&Fmt=3&did=000000190278131&clientId=17870>.

6) "Monsanto Likely Phasing Out Controversial Bovine Growth Hormone."

Milkweed June 2004. 1 Dec. 2004
<http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbgh/phaseout062904.cfm>.

7) recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone vs. Organic Dairy. Organic Consumers

Association. 1 Dec. 2004 <http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbghlink.html>.

8) Roseboro, Ken. Consumers Willing to Pay More for rBGH-Free Milk. Nov.

2003. 1 Dec. 2004
<http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbgh/paymore112403.cfm>.

[15] “recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone v. Organic Dairy”