home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- <text id=94TT0179>
- <title>
- Feb. 14, 1994: Brave New World Of Milk
- </title>
- <history>
- TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1994
- Feb. 14, 1994 Are Men Really That Bad?
- </history>
- <article>
- <source>Time Magazine</source>
- <hdr>
- PROTESTS, Page 31
- Brave New World Of Milk
- </hdr>
- <body>
- <p>Foes of biotech stir up fears about a genetically engineered
- hormone that boosts cows' production
- </p>
- <p>By Philip Elmer-Dewitt--Reported by Janice M. Horowitz/New York, Michael Riley/Atlanta
- and Dick Thompson/Washington
- </p>
- <p> They gathered last week outside supermarkets and shopping malls
- in Chicago, Minneapolis, Washington and other U.S. cities, carrying
- signs and posing for TV cameras in goofy-looking cow suits.
- A young woman in Manhattan dumped a bucket of milk onto a frozen
- sidewalk. A man in Madison, Wisconsin, dragged white plastic
- cartons stamped with the skull and crossbones up the steps of
- the state capitol. Two dozen demonstrators marched in front
- of Atlanta's Toco Hills shopping center with a banner that read
- stop the "frankenfood"--save the cows.
- </p>
- <p> What roused these '60s-style protesters was a quintessentially
- '90s issue: whether a genetically engineered hormone that went
- on sale last week after nearly 10 years of legal wrangling threatens
- the safety of American milk. The hormone, a natural protein
- found in cows, is being artificially manufactured in vats of
- genetically altered bacteria. When cows are regularly given
- extra doses of the hormone, their milk production can rise as
- much as 15%. Scientists call the chemical bovine somatotropin
- (BST) or, more simply, bovine growth hormone (BGH), and it is
- marketed under the trade name Posilac.
- </p>
- <p> Monsanto, which reports brisk sales in its new product, insists
- that milk from BGH-treated cows is indistinguishable from ordinary
- milk. The Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes
- of Health and the American Medical Association agree. Says FDA
- Commissioner David Kessler: "There's virtually no difference
- between treated and untreated cows."
- </p>
- <p> But critics, organized by antibiotech gadfly Jeremy Rifkin,
- don't buy that line. They point out that cows treated with BGH
- are more susceptible to udder infections, and they are worried
- that unless milk is rigorously inspected, antibiotics used to
- treat the cows could find their way into the milk supply. While
- there is a germ of truth to their argument, their tactics--and their rhetoric--go overboard. Calling BGH "crack for cows,"
- an alert issued by Rifkin's Washington-based Foundation on Economic
- Trends warned consumers--erroneously--that ice cream and
- infant formula from treated cows would be "laced with genetically
- altered, artificial hormones" and "large amounts of pus."
- </p>
- <p> Fearing that milk's carefully nurtured image as the perfect
- food might be at stake, some retailers and distributors took
- action. Kroger, the nation's largest supermarket chain, is asking
- suppliers to avoid buying milk from BGH-treated cows, and some
- companies are trying to find a way to mark their milk products
- "hormone free." But others, like A&P, are standing pat. Such
- labels, they point out, are meaningless, because no test can
- distinguish artificial BGH from the natural variety.
- </p>
- <p> Caught in the middle are 140,000 U.S. dairy farmers who, having
- run up a milk surplus for years, are split over whether extra
- production is good. Some farmers are angry at having "technology
- shoved down our throats," says Jim McGhee, who runs an 18-cow
- dairy farm near Hollandale, Wisconsin. But many say that if
- BGH will help their bottom lines, they're willing to try it.
- The big question is whether consumers can approach the supermarkets
- with an equally receptive attitude.
- </p>
-
- </body>
- </article>
- </text>
-
-