KEEPING MILK SAFE: CANADA BANS BST

The Canadian government recently banned in the Canadian dairy industry the use of recombinant bovine somatrotropin, also known as rBST, BGH, or BST. BST is a genetically engineered growth hormone that increases milk production in cows. The company that manufactures BST, Monsanto Chemical Corporation, has claimed for years that the growth hormone has no adverse side effects on animals that are injected with it, nor on the humans who consume the milk products produced with the assistance of the drug. Many people disagree with Monsanto’s claim that the drug is safe. An environmental group called The Sierra Club of Canada and the independent citizen’s rights group called the Council of Canadians both have opposed the use of BST. Health Canada, the federal government department responsible for approving new drugs and food products, found itself caught in the middle of a dispute that at times became contentious and bitter. During the nine-year attempt by Monsanto to get BST approved for use in Canada, there have been allegations at Health Canada of bribery, the shredding of documents, the disappearance of important files, and the silencing of employees who wanted to speak out publicly on the issue.

At the centre of the controversy is a disagreement over scientific evidence. Monsanto has produced numerous studies to demonstrate that the growth hormone does not have an adverse effect on animals or humans. However, in the United States, where BST is distributed under the trade name Prosilac, the drug is accompanied by a warning label that highlights 20 possible complications and side effects. Some of these side effects include increased levels of pus in milk, and lesions and growths on the thyroid glands of animals. Furthermore, many independent scientists—those not being paid by Monsanto—have reviewed the studies done by Monsanto researchers and claim that the studies are bad science—that data have been misinterpreted, certain pieces of data have been overlooked, or that over-generalizations have been made about the safety of BST based on only one or two studies. Those who are sceptical include scientists from Health Canada itself.

Some see the battle to keep milk safe in Canada as an issue involving the power of large corporations to influence government decisions and public policy. There have been allegations that Monsanto tried to bribe scientists at Health Canada, that studies completed by Monsanto scientists were biased, and that Monsanto had put pressure on the government to approve the use of BST. When Health Canada decided to delay making a decision on the approval of BST in December 1998, Monsanto warned that the action taken by the government might discourage other companies from doing business with Canada.

The battle over BST has also raised concerns over the impact of large corporations on free speech. In Tampa Bay, Florida, Fox 13 Television is alleged to have fired two veteran reporters because of pressure from Monsanto, an advertiser, over a documentary the reporters produced critical of BST. As well, the British journal The Ecologist had to find a new printer for its September-October 1998 issue at the last minute because the printer refused to print the issue containing serious criticisms of genetically modified food products and of the Monsanto Corporation. For now, federal Minister of Health Allan Rock has refused to approve BST, but the political ramifications of the ban are yet to be determined.