Animal health
One meta-analysis published in 2003 suggested a negative impact of rBST's effects on bovine health. Findings suggested an average increase in milk output ranging from 11–16%, an approximate 24% increase in the risk of clinical mastitis, a 40% reduction in fertility, and 55% increased risk of developing clinical signs of lameness. The same study reported a decrease in body condition score for cows treated with rBST, though an increase in their dry matter intake occurred.[7]
Another meta-analysis (2003) reported on body condition scores (BCS) but could not reach a conclusion due to lack of homogeneity in study design and reporting. They found a trend towards decreased BCS in treated cows but state "Depending on the level of body condition in these cows, this effect may have been beneficial or detrimental."[25] This analysis did not report on clinical mastitis.
A more recent meta-analysis (2014) published by the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association showed no significant increase in risk of clinical mastitis nor other adverse effects on cow health and well-being. This review included 26 peer-reviewed studies that involved the use of the rBST-Zn formulation available to US producers in accordance with the label instructions for treatment initiation (57 to 70 days after birth), dose (500 mg, every 14 days), and route (subcutaneous).[26]
Mastitis has cost American dairy industries an estimated $1.5 to 2 billion per year in treating dairy cows.[27]
In 1994, an EU scientific commission was asked to report on the incidence of mastitis and other disorders in dairy cows and on other aspects of their welfare.[10] The commission's statement, subsequently adopted by the EU, stated that the use of rBST substantially increased health problems with cows, including foot problems, mastitis, and injection site reactions, impinged on the welfare of the animals, and caused reproductive disorders. The report concluded, on the basis of the health and welfare of the animals, rBST should not be used. Health Canada prohibited the sale of rBST in 1999; the external committees found that there was health risk to humans, and the drug present a threat to animal health, and, for this reason, cannot be sold in Canada.[28]
Monsanto-sponsored trials reviewed by the FDA asked whether the use of rBST makes cows more susceptible to mastitis.[29] According to the FDA, which used data from eight Monsanto-sponsored trials in its decision in 1993 to approve Monsanto's rBST product, the answer is yes. The data from these eight trials, which involved 487 cows, showed that during the period of rBST treatment, mastitis incidence increased by 76% in primiparous cows and by 50% for multiparous cows. Overall, the increase was 53%.[29]
Conversely, however, a study from the University of Georgia on the monitoring post-approval of rBST, showed that there was no statistically significant (P > 0.05) derivation in cases of clinical mastitis in dairy cows treated with rBST.[30]
Macronutrient composition
The overall composition of the milk including the fat, protein, and lactose content is not altered substantially by the use of rBST in dairy cows. The milk may have a slight change in fat content within the first few weeks of rBST treatment as the cow is allowed to adjust her metabolism and feed intake. The changes in the fat content have been shown to be temporary. The composition of the milk has been examined in more than 200 different experiments. Natural variation within milk is normal with or without rBST treatment in cows due to genetics, location, feed, age, and other environmental factors. Protein in milk content has also been studied and was shown to have no apparent change in rBST treated cows. The vitamins and minerals that are normally in milk were also unaltered in milk from rBST treated cows. Freezing point, pH, thermal properties, and other manufacturing characteristics of milk were shown to be the same regardless of whether it came from rBST treated cows or not.[31]
Hormones
BST is destroyed in the digestive system and even if directly injected, has not been found to have any direct effect on humans.[31] Researchers have found that "IGF-1 in milk is not denatured by pasteurization and the extent to which intact, active IGF-1 is absorbed through the human digestive tract remains still however uncertain" implicating that an extensive study on the nature of IGF-1 in relation to rBST milk is required.
Macronutrient composition
The overall composition of the milk including the fat, protein, and lactose content is not altered substantially by the use of rBST in dairy cows. The milk may have a slight change in fat content within the first few weeks of rBST treatment as the cow is allowed to adjust her metabolism and feed intake. The changes in the fat content have been shown to be temporary. The composition of the milk has been examined in more than 200 different experiments. Natural variation within milk is normal with or without rBST treatment in cows due to genetics, location, feed, age, and other environmental factors. Protein in milk content has also been studied and was shown to have no apparent change in rBST treated cows. The vitamins and minerals that are normally in milk were also unaltered in milk from rBST treated cows. Freezing point, pH, thermal properties, and other manufacturing characteristics of milk were shown to be the same regardless of whether it came from rBST treated cows or not.[31]
Hormones
BST is destroyed in the digestive system and even if directly injected, has not been found to have any direct effect on humans.[31] Researchers have found that "IGF-1 in milk is not denatured by pasteurization and the extent to which intact, active IGF-1 is absorbed through the human digestive tract remains still however uncertain" implicating that an extensive study on the nature of IGF-1 in relation to rBST milk is required.[32]
FDA rBST labeling guidelines state, "FDA is concerned that the term 'rBST free' may imply a compositional difference between milk from treated and untreated cows rather than a difference in the way the milk is produced. Without proper context, such statements could be misleading. Such unqualified statements may imply that milk from untreated cows is safer or of higher quality than milk from treated cows. Such an implication would be false and misleading".[33] The FDA has determined that no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBST treated and non-rBST treated cows.[34]
The FDA, World Health Organization,[5]
Human health
The effect of rBGH on human health is an ongoing debate, in part due to the lack of conclusive evidence. A few of the most debated issues include:
Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) is a hormone found in humans that is responsible for growth promotion, protein synthesis, and insulin actions over the lifecycle. The hormone has been shown to influence the growth of tumors in some studies and may be linked to the development of prostate,[36] colorectal, breast,[37][38] and other cancers.[39][40][41]
Environmental impact
On an industry level, supplementing one million cows with rBST would result in the same amount of milk produced while needing 157,000 fewer cows.[46] Farmers are, therefore, able to improve milk production with a smaller dairy population.
Some studies show that rBST-treated cows reduce the greenhouse gas footprint in comparison with conventional and organic dairy operations. Cady's study showed that excretion of nitrogen and phosphorus, two major environmental pollutants arising from animal agriculture, was reduced by 9.1 and 11.8%, respectively.[47] Carbon dioxide is recognized to be the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas,[48] and livestock metabolism and fossil fuel consumption are the main sources of emissions from animal agriculture. When conventional, conventional with rBST, and organic dairy operations are compared, 8% fewer cows are needed in an rBST-supplemented population, whereas organic production systems require a 25% increase to meet production targets.[47] This is due to a lower milk yield per cow due to the pasture-based system which is attributed with a greater maintenance energy expenditure associated with grazing behavior.
Lawsuit against WTVT
In 1997, the news division of WTVT (Channel 13), a Fox-owned station in Tampa, Florida, planned to air an investigative report by Steve Wilson and Jane Akre on the health risks associated with Monsanto's bovine growth hormone product, Posilac.[50] Just before the story was to air, Fox received a letter from Monsanto saying the reporters were biased and that the story would damage the company.[50] Akre stated that Wilson and she went through 83 rewrites over eight months.[51] Negotiations broke down and both reporters were eventually fired. Wilson and Akre alleged the firing was for retaliation, while WTVT contended they were fired for insubordination.[50] The reporters then sued Fox/WTVT in Florida state court under the state's whistleblower statute. In 2000, a Florida jury found that while no evidence showed Fox/WTVT had bowed to any pressure from Monsanto to alter the story, Akre, but not Wilson, was a whistleblower and was unjustly fired.
