TIME: Almanac 1990/1990 Time Magazine Compact Almanac, The (1991)(Time).iso/time/052989/05298900.001

Text File | 1990-09-22 | 4KB | 63 lines

TECHNOLOGY, Page 77

A Furious Battle over Milk

Farmers fear a biotech protein that could produce a dairy glut


    To its manufacturers the hormone represents the dawn of a
dazzling new era in agriculture. To its critics, however, it poses
a dangerous threat to the prosperity of dairy farmers and the
wholesome image of "nature's perfect food." The product is bovine
somatotropin, a natural protein found in cattle that has been
artificially mass-produced in the labs of several pharmaceutical
firms. When injected into dairy cows, BST can increase their milk
production up to 25%. But would the use of BST create a milk glut
that could drive down dairy prices? And would consumers view milk
from BST-treated cows as artificial and somehow tainted?

    Those questions have ignited debate over BST, which is the
first major product that the fledgling biotechnology industry has
developed for agriculture. The hormone has been used in several
West European nations, the Soviet Union and South Africa. But
opposition is intense. The European Parliament, for example, has
recommended that its member countries prohibit the sale of meat or
milk from BST-treated cows, and two provinces in Canada have
temporarily halted the distribution of such products. In the U.S.
the Food and Drug Administration is considering whether to approve
the use of BST amid rising protests from concerned dairy states.
Wisconsin's agriculture secretary has proposed a moratorium of up
to three years on the use of BST while its economic consequences
are studied, and several dairy cooperatives in California said they
will not accept BST-treated milk.

    The four U.S. companies that make BST -- Monsanto, Eli Lilly,
Upjohn and American Cyanamid -- are having trouble understanding
why it is so controversial. They point out that BST is a natural
hormone produced by a cow's pituitary gland and present in all
milk. In fact, they assert, milk from BST-treated cows has no more
BST than regular milk. The companies contend that BST injections
would merely enable dairy farmers to produce the same amount of
milk with fewer cows. "BST is about efficiency," asserts Monsanto
spokesman Laurence O'Neill. Says Stephen White, BST project manager
for American Cyanamid: "The thought that we are going to turn the
rivers white with milk is a myth."

    Others are not so sure. "In this business, if the production
goes up, the price goes down," complains John Zonneveld, a dairy
farmer in Laton, Calif. "The only guy who's going to gain from BST
is the guy who manufactures the stuff."

    Some dairy officials are worried about tampering with milk at
a time when the public is already nervous about food safety.
"You're monkeying around with a product that has a natural image,"
warns Adri Boudewyn, spokesman for the California Milk Advisory
Board. The dairy industry is concerned that critics of BST will try
to turn public opinion against the hormone. Anti-BST television and
radio commercials have already been produced but have not yet
aired. One 30-second TV spot, created by Jeremy Rifkin, the
flamboyant Washington-based opponent of most biotechnology,
features a glass of milk with a hypodermic syringe lying beside it.
A voice asks, "What are they doing to our milk?"

    But milk buyers would be well advised to ignore that scare
tactic. Unless BST is shown to pose a health hazard to cows or
humans, the main question will be one of economics and politics:
Should the financial interests of dairy farmers be put above the
right of consumers to have lower milk prices?