2 Routine Feeding Of Antibiotics To Livestock May Be Contaminating The Environment
This article says 9 and 13 million kilograms of antibiotics are used annually in the United States for raising livestock's. Also, it explains adverse effect of antibiotics used in. According to article the wastage of livestock is applied to agricultural land to corps nutrition.
I like this article because we are eating corps everyday which is contaminated. I used don’t eat livestock and used to think I can be safe but this article reminded me I am also unsafe of this chemical world indirectly.
Routine Feeding Of Antibiotics To Livestock May Be Contaminating The Environment
ScienceDaily (Jul. 13, 2007) — It is estimated that between 9 and 13 million kilograms of antibiotics are used annually in the United States for raising livestock, with the majority being used for growth advancement and disease prevention purposes. Large amounts of antibiotics fed to livestock are excreted and end up in animal manure, which is commonly applied to agricultural land to provide crop nutrients. Therefore, food crops grown on manure-altered soils are exposed to antibiotics. Scientists at the University of Minnesota have been evaluating the impact of antibiotic feeding in livestock production on the environment. This particular study, funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), evaluated whether food crops accumulate antibiotics from soils spread with manure that contains antibiotics.
Plant uptake was evaluated in a greenhouse study involving three food crops: corn, lettuce, and potato. Plants were grown on soil modified with liquid hog manure containing Sulfamethazine, a commonly used veterinary antibiotic. This antibiotic was taken up by all three crops. Concentrations of antibiotics were found in the plant leaves. Concentrations in plant tissue also increased as the amount of antibiotics present in the manure increased. It also diffused into potato tubers, which suggests that root crops, such as potatoes, carrots, and radishes, that directly come in contact with soil may be particularly vulnerable to antibiotic contamination.
The ability of plants to absorb antibiotics raises the potential for contamination of human food supply. However, Satish Gupta, group leader notes "The adverse impacts of consuming plants that contain small quantities of antibiotics are largely unknown". Consumption of antibiotics in plants may cause allergic reactions in sensitive populations, such as young children. There is also concern that consuming antibiotics may lead to the development of antimicrobial resistance, which can render antibiotics ineffective.
Holly Dolliver, the lead scientist in this study, notes that antibiotics consumed by plants may be of particular concern to the organic farming industry. Manure is often the main source of crop nutrients for organic food production, since regulations prohibit the use of synthetic fertilizers. According to the USDA, producers must manage animal materials in a manner that does not contribute to contamination of crops by residues of prohibited substances, which includes antibiotics. However, manures containing antibiotics are not formally banned or prohibited.
Further research is needed to investigate the presence of antibiotics in edible parts of plants, especially vegetables that are consumed raw, and how different plants absorb different antibiotic compounds. Research is ongoing at the University of Minnesota to further investigate the potential fate and transport of antibiotics introduced to the environment from livestock operations.
Results from the study are published in the July-August 2007 issue of the Journal of Environmental Quality. The research was also presented in Indianapolis, IN at the Annual Soil Science Society of America Meeting in November 2006. Adapted from materials provided by Soil Science Society of America, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
3.Since his presidential campaign, Lee has suggested Green Korea project to help North Korea's Forestation. North korea's forest is devastated since trees were cut down as firewood. Lee has instructed his Cabinet ro consider sending young plants and seedling to North Korea ahead of Arbor day.I think this kind of effort will help prepare for reunification and I hope it will continue.
This article also mention that Lee is willing to push the cross-country canal project.He said canal can upgrade the quality of river water. I think water quality might get better because of increasement in water quantity. However nobody knows for sure what will happen to river eco-system since depth, width, speed, water quality and quantity will totally change. Each river condition has its typical species which has adapted themshelves in that situation. And constructing canal might standardized habitat environment. Loss of habitat diversity will cause loss of biodiversity.
-------- South Ready to Help North's Forestation
President Lee Myung-bak By Jung Sung-ki, Bae Ji-sook Staff Reporters
President Lee Myung-bak said Friday that South Korea should launch efforts to help the forestation of North Korea to prepare for the reunification of the two Koreas.
Lee also reiterated his willingness to push the cross-country canal project as a way to clean contaminated river water.
``South Korea should begin now to cooperate on the forestation of North Korea,'' Lee said, while being briefed by the Ministry of Environment on its policy goals in Gwangju, Gyeonggi Province. The North has not yet responded.
``Such cooperation would not only help (the two Koreas) prepare for reunification, but also help conserve our land. In addition, it would also help us create a national value of environmental protection,'' said Lee.
He instructed his Cabinet to consider sending young plants and seedlings to North Korea ahead of Arbor Day, which falls on April 5, to help the communist state's forestation efforts.
Lee also called for efforts to cut carbon emissions.
``Carbon emission-related businesses have already come into being in Europe. We should also brace for the enforcement of the Kyoto Protocol in 2013,'' he said.
The President asked ministry officials to launch a nationwide campaign to persuade people that tap water is safe to drink.
Lee is known for initiating a tap water promotion campaign while serving as Seoul mayor between 2002 and 2006, and having the Seoul metropolitan government provide bottled tap water, named Arisu.
As for environmental contamination, he said he was disappointed to see Youngsan River polluted and doubts whether the government should spend more than 2 trillion won to clean it.
``The government is to spend about 20 trillion won to clean four rivers _ Han, Youngsan, Nakdong and Geum _ over the next eight or nine years. I think it would be a waste of money. We need more fundamental measures to deal with it,'' he said.
Lee has said since his presidential campaign that constructing the canal can upgrade the quality of river water, and his comments at the briefing are perceived as his resolution to push his project further, despite political parties' move to veto it.
The governing Grand National Party (GNP) previously said it will not select the canal project as a main pledge for the April 9 National Assembly elections.
Moreover, some of the defectors of the party, who failed to win the party's nomination for the election, said they would launch an anti-canal campaign. Therefore, rumors had it that the President could be having second thoughts on his blockbuster plan. But Friday, he seemed solid, experts said.
The environment ministry also showed several ways to ease regulations on the country's development plan to help revive the economy.
It has already announced loosened environmental bans on building industrial complexes near water supply sources. While the current law prevents the building of factories within 15 kilometers of water sources, the ministry will reduce it to 7 kilometers.
Through the revision, the government expects more real estate to be available for industrial use. In Namyangju, Gyeonggi Province, for example, 75 percent of the land was regulated against development, but this willdrop to 30 percent,
Also, the government set greenhouse gas emissions in 2012 to be about the same as in 2007. Since Korea is one of the most gas-emitting countries in the world, environmentalists have requested the government to set regulations to reduce the emissions.
However, a ministry official said maintaining the status quo is the best the country can do. ``We expect the industry to lead us to emit 12 percent more gas in the future. Therefore, maintaining the same amount as now could be referred to as a `reduction' in some ways,'' Kim Jin-tae, the ministry's spokesman, said.
Environmental civic groups denounced the ministry. Green Fund said the ministry's plans are ``going completely in the opposite direction to international trends and that they are shameful.''
1. Park, Dae-yun 2. Why Monsanto Doesn't Want You to Know About Those Hormones in Your Dairy 3.
Monsanto, the only producter of an artificial growth hormone, has tried to against labels attachment saying "rBST-free" because it can lead to company's finaicial loss. I think we can apply this article to environmental theory, Marx's metabolism. As we know, Marx’s metabolism is one of paradox of capital economy society to make ecological crisis caused by large-scale industry and large-scale agriculture under capitalism. An artificial hormone has used to produce more milk or meat with lower price. Many people have concerned about its problem. They say, it might cause not only cow's health problem directly but also human's health indirectly. This is a case of problem to pursue large-scale agriculture.
-------- 4. New York state dairy farmer John Bunting doesn't use an artificial bovine growth hormone on his cows for one key reason. He doesn't want them getting sick. "I care about my cows," he said, "I like my cows."
The growth hormone in question is made by the Monsanto Company. The current debate about Monsanto's hormone involves labels. The multinational agricultural biotech company seems to be getting nervous about the prospect of telling consumers what's in their milk - or rather, what's not in their milk.
A Monsanto-backed advocacy group is now going from state to state, fighting labels that declare dairy products free from the bovine growth hormone. Monsanto is the only producer of an artificial hormone, the Posilac brand recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST or rBGH), that increases milk production in cows. Labels saying "rBST-free" could lead to financial losses for the corporation.
(Matt Mahurin) The growth hormone can mean more milk at cheaper prices. But Posilac has been linked to health problems in both cows and humans -- one reason the European Union and Canada both banned its use. Anti-labeling measures by Monsanto are facing a backlash from consumers who want to know what goes into their milk. Labeling would alert many to the fact that a large majority of American dairy products come from cows injected with the hormone. Many dairy processors are now using rBST-free alternative to meet these growing consumer concerns, for the hormone has been linked to cancer and other problems. Yet it doesn't look like the FDA-approved synthetic hormone will be pushed out of the market any time soon.
The advocacy group making the argument for Monsanto is American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology (AFACT) -- an organization that gets at least some financial backing from Monsanto. AFACT was established in 2007 by the consultant Monty G. Miller of the Colorado firm International Performance Solutions, whose client list includes Monsanto. In launching AFACT, Miller received help from the public relations firm Osborn & Barr, whose CEO, Steve Barr, is a former Monsanto marketing executive.
AFACT has been pressuring state agriculture departments and state legislators to introduce bills that would restrict hormone labels. Bills restricting "rBST-free" labels have popped up in several state legislatures -- including Kansas, Utah, Indiana and Missouri. In Pennsylvania and New Jersey, similar pro-hormone bills have already been voted down.
Most of the nation's leading dairy processors use milk from cows treated with the bovine growth hormone in at least some products. Land O'Lakes, Good Humor-Breyers, Dreyers, Dannon, Yoplait and Sargento are some of the biggest buyers of milk from rBST-treated cows. Dean Foods and Kraft, the leading U.S. dairy producers, use rBST milk in many products, but not all. In June, Kraft will introduce a line of rBST-free 2-percent milk products.
Kraft spokesman Basil Maglaris says the company is responding to a growing consumer movement. "We do understand that some consumers -- not all -- are looking for products from cows not treated with [rBST]," said Maglaris. "So we are converting the line to give those consumers an option."
Converting the line will mean an increase in price for those 2-percent products. But Kraft says that rBST-free products will attract new customers.
Many of those customers are pointing to related health concerns -- for both cows and humans. According to Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, rBST increases the risk of cancer by elevating levels of another hormone, IGF-1. High levels of IGF-1 can promote breast cancer, prostate cancer and colon cancer.
"If you have even just subtle amounts of IGF-1, there's a link to breast, prostate and colon cancer," said Dr. Jenny Pompilio, an internist with Kaiser Permanente in Oregon. "It's been known for years that that particular hormone is linked with cancers [because of its] effects on the endocrine system. The endocrine system is so sensitive that subtle effects can [make a difference]."
The other health concern affects first cows and then humans, says the Oregon physicians group. People who consume these dairy products could become resistant to antibiotics -- making them prone to bacterial infections. The resistance is directly related to health problems of cows injected with the hormone. These cows have higher rates of udder infections, or mastitis. When they are treated with antibiotics, resistant bacteria can grow. People who later eat dairy products from these cows can also build up resistance. When antibiotics cease to be effective, the threat of infectious diseases increases.
Monsanto says its synthetic hormone does not create problems. "POSILAC is perfectly healthy for cows," said Monsanto spokesperson Lori Hoag, "bST is a naturally occurring hormone in every cow -- rbST is an additional supplement of that naturally occurring hormone."
Hoag says that there is no difference between milk from cows injected with rBGH/rBST and other milk. "[A]ll milk is the same. All milk has bST, all milk has hormones," she said. "Labels that claim "rbST-free" are misleading to consumers, making them believe there is a difference in the milk, when, in fact, there is none."
But New York dairy farmer Bunting disagrees. He says that rBST is a whole protein off from naturally occurring BST. "If you created a molecule one protein different, you could not honestly say there could be no difference [between the two]," said Bunting. "Monsanto and the FDA are asking farmers and consumers to take a risk for which there is no known benefit."
While there may be no benefits when it comes to human health, economic gains could be great for some. Cows injected with the hormone produce roughly a gallon more milk a day than untreated cows. (On average, untreated cows produce about eight gallons a day.) That means dairy farmers can produce more milk at lower costs, and dairy processors can make their products at lower costs. Big dairy farmers, big dairy processors and Monsato all get more money.
But Bunting says that rBST poses risks to smaller dairy farms, including his own. He says big farms that use rBST to produce more milk could lead to smaller farms going under. "More milk means fewer farmers," said Bunting, "It does not benefit the [whole] farm community."
It could benefit consumers, though. Using rBST brings milk prices down. Monsanto's product therefore provides an option for people who just want less expensive milk, cheese and ice cream.
Monsanto says that labeling could be unfair to certain corporations. "[B]ecause there is no difference [between BST and rBST]," said spokesperson Hoag, "there is no way to verify whether or not rbST was used as a supplement. So, even though some processors claim their milk to be 'rbST-free,' they cannot prove that to be true."
The ice cream company GoodHumor-Breyers has concerns about this. "We purchase our dairy ingredients from cooperatives, and are unable to guarantee that rBGH is not used," said GoodHumor-Breyers spokesperson Andon Tate, "Currently, there is no test available that can distinguish between the naturally-occurring BST and the rBGH growth hormone."
But even consumers who don't care about the growth hormone's health effects, says consumer advocate Jill Richardson of Recipe for America, are speaking out against Monsanto's efforts to restrict dairy labeling. "Some people even say that they don't personally mind the idea of milk with rBST," she said, "but the dishonesty of this [anti-labeling] tactic makes them furious."
From: , Organic Consumers Association, More from this Affiliate Published March 27, 2008 --- http://www.enn.com/agriculture/article/33666/
3. i realized that ewhasarang, the cafe of posco building, is not refunding the guarantee money any more. this sudden change makes me sad.
I know that people are not that interested about reducing wastes, but i think this 'policy abolition' will make more cup wastes.
According to this article, the policy didn't work out for reducing wastes but for company promotion.
If a policy is not helpful for some reason, we have to fix it and make additional efforts, not abolishing it.
I hope president Lee and the Ministry of environment 'do something' for environment.
---------------------------------- No More Charges for Disposable Cups
By Bae Ji-sook Staff Reporter
From Thursday, people will not have to pay 50-100 won for disposable cups at takeout restaurants. The Ministry of Environment said Tuesday that it will scrap rules requiring restaurants to collect the guarantee money intended to discourage the use of disposable cups.
The decision is in line with President Lee Myung-bak's campaign pledges to deregulate environment-related regulations, a ministry spokesman said.
For the moment, customers who buy cups will still be able to get refunds until the end of June.
The disposable cup fee was one of the most talked-about issues since its adoption in 2003.
The idea, to let people use disposable goods and pay for them but get refunds once they return them, was criticized for its unfeasibility in reducing the use of disposable goods.
Some said people still use the goods while fast food chains benefited from extra money.
Most restaurants held alleged environmental protection campaigns with money from unclaimed refunds. They sent out memos or little souvenirs but had their own logos on them as if using them for advertising.
Those opposing the fee said that most of the money collected through the system was used for company promotion, which was irrelevant to protecting the environment.
They said the refund rate of 39 percent meant most people did not really care about returning the cup to save the environment despite the extra 50-100 won fee.
The government said the intention may have been good, but since many do not follow it, the policy should be abolished.
However, environmentalists opposed the decision. They said using the money effectively should come first rather than abolishing the system. Kim Mi-hwa, the head of civic group Zero Waste, said about 72.7 percent of 1,308 people surveyed said they support the fee.
``It was actually the companies who voluntarily came up with ideas to reduce disposable goods. However, the government ruined it,'' she said.
A very down to earth* kind of guy. I'm an environmental sociologist interested in establishing material and organizational sustainability worldwide. I'm always looking for interesting materials/technologies, inspiring ideas, or institutional examples of sustainability to inspire others to recognize their choices now. To be fatalistic about an unsustainable world is a sign of a captive mind, given all our options.
*(If "earth" is defined in a planetary sense, concerning comparative historical knowledge and interest in the past 10,000 years or so anywhere...) See both blogs.
4 comments:
1 Madhabi Bhatta
2 Routine Feeding Of Antibiotics To Livestock May Be Contaminating The Environment
This article says 9 and 13 million kilograms of antibiotics are used annually in the United States for raising livestock's. Also, it explains adverse effect of antibiotics used in. According to article the wastage of livestock is applied to agricultural land to corps nutrition.
I like this article because we are eating corps everyday which is contaminated. I used don’t eat livestock and used to think I can be safe but this article reminded me I am also unsafe of this chemical world indirectly.
Routine Feeding Of Antibiotics To Livestock May Be Contaminating The Environment
ScienceDaily (Jul. 13, 2007) — It is estimated that between 9 and 13 million kilograms of antibiotics are used annually in the United States for raising livestock, with the majority being used for growth advancement and disease prevention purposes. Large amounts of antibiotics fed to livestock are excreted and end up in animal manure, which is commonly applied to agricultural land to provide crop nutrients. Therefore, food crops grown on manure-altered soils are exposed to antibiotics. Scientists at the University of Minnesota have been evaluating the impact of antibiotic feeding in livestock production on the environment. This particular study, funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), evaluated whether food crops accumulate antibiotics from soils spread with manure that contains antibiotics.
Plant uptake was evaluated in a greenhouse study involving three food crops: corn, lettuce, and potato. Plants were grown on soil modified with liquid hog manure containing Sulfamethazine, a commonly used veterinary antibiotic. This antibiotic was taken up by all three crops. Concentrations of antibiotics were found in the plant leaves. Concentrations in plant tissue also increased as the amount of antibiotics present in the manure increased. It also diffused into potato tubers, which suggests that root crops, such as potatoes, carrots, and radishes, that directly come in contact with soil may be particularly vulnerable to antibiotic contamination.
The ability of plants to absorb antibiotics raises the potential for contamination of human food supply. However, Satish Gupta, group leader notes "The adverse impacts of consuming plants that contain small quantities of antibiotics are largely unknown". Consumption of antibiotics in plants may cause allergic reactions in sensitive populations, such as young children. There is also concern that consuming antibiotics may lead to the development of antimicrobial resistance, which can render antibiotics ineffective.
Holly Dolliver, the lead scientist in this study, notes that antibiotics consumed by plants may be of particular concern to the organic farming industry. Manure is often the main source of crop nutrients for organic food production, since regulations prohibit the use of synthetic fertilizers. According to the USDA, producers must manage animal materials in a manner that does not contribute to contamination of crops by residues of prohibited substances, which includes antibiotics. However, manures containing antibiotics are not formally banned or prohibited.
Further research is needed to investigate the presence of antibiotics in edible parts of plants, especially vegetables that are consumed raw, and how different plants absorb different antibiotic compounds. Research is ongoing at the University of Minnesota to further investigate the potential fate and transport of antibiotics introduced to the environment from livestock operations.
Results from the study are published in the July-August 2007 issue of the Journal of Environmental Quality. The research was also presented in Indianapolis, IN at the Annual Soil Science Society of America Meeting in November 2006.
Adapted from materials provided by Soil Science Society of America, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070711134530.htm
1. Yoon-jung, Kim
2. Environmental Policy of New Goverment of Korea
3.Since his presidential campaign, Lee has suggested Green Korea project to help North Korea's Forestation. North korea's forest is devastated since trees were cut down as firewood. Lee has instructed his Cabinet ro consider sending young plants and seedling to North Korea ahead of Arbor day.I think this kind of effort will help prepare for reunification and I hope it will continue.
This article also mention that Lee is willing to push the cross-country canal project.He said canal can upgrade the quality of river water. I think water quality might get better because of increasement in water quantity. However nobody knows for sure what will happen to river eco-system since depth, width, speed, water quality and quantity will totally change. Each river condition has its typical species which has adapted themshelves in that situation. And constructing canal might standardized habitat environment. Loss of habitat diversity will cause loss of biodiversity.
--------
South Ready to Help North's Forestation
President Lee Myung-bak
By Jung Sung-ki, Bae Ji-sook
Staff Reporters
President Lee Myung-bak said Friday that South Korea should launch efforts to help the forestation of North Korea to prepare for the reunification of the two Koreas.
Lee also reiterated his willingness to push the cross-country canal project as a way to clean contaminated river water.
``South Korea should begin now to cooperate on the forestation of North Korea,'' Lee said, while being briefed by the Ministry of Environment on its policy goals in Gwangju, Gyeonggi Province. The North has not yet responded.
``Such cooperation would not only help (the two Koreas) prepare for reunification, but also help conserve our land. In addition, it would also help us create a national value of environmental protection,'' said Lee.
He instructed his Cabinet to consider sending young plants and seedlings to North Korea ahead of Arbor Day, which falls on April 5, to help the communist state's forestation efforts.
Lee also called for efforts to cut carbon emissions.
``Carbon emission-related businesses have already come into being in Europe. We should also brace for the enforcement of the Kyoto Protocol in 2013,'' he said.
The President asked ministry officials to launch a nationwide campaign to persuade people that tap water is safe to drink.
Lee is known for initiating a tap water promotion campaign while serving as Seoul mayor between 2002 and 2006, and having the Seoul metropolitan government provide bottled tap water, named Arisu.
As for environmental contamination, he said he was disappointed to see Youngsan River polluted and doubts whether the government should spend more than 2 trillion won to clean it.
``The government is to spend about 20 trillion won to clean four rivers _ Han, Youngsan, Nakdong and Geum _ over the next eight or nine years. I think it would be a waste of money. We need more fundamental measures to deal with it,'' he said.
Lee has said since his presidential campaign that constructing the canal can upgrade the quality of river water, and his comments at the briefing are perceived as his resolution to push his project further, despite political parties' move to veto it.
The governing Grand National Party (GNP) previously said it will not select the canal project as a main pledge for the April 9 National Assembly elections.
Moreover, some of the defectors of the party, who failed to win the party's nomination for the election, said they would launch an anti-canal campaign. Therefore, rumors had it that the President could be having second thoughts on his blockbuster plan. But Friday, he seemed solid, experts said.
The environment ministry also showed several ways to ease regulations on the country's development plan to help revive the economy.
It has already announced loosened environmental bans on building industrial complexes near water supply sources. While the current law prevents the building of factories within 15 kilometers of water sources, the ministry will reduce it to 7 kilometers.
Through the revision, the government expects more real estate to be available for industrial use. In Namyangju, Gyeonggi Province, for example, 75 percent of the land was regulated against development, but this willdrop to 30 percent,
Also, the government set greenhouse gas emissions in 2012 to be about the same as in 2007. Since Korea is one of the most gas-emitting countries in the world, environmentalists have requested the government to set regulations to reduce the emissions.
However, a ministry official said maintaining the status quo is the best the country can do. ``We expect the industry to lead us to emit 12 percent more gas in the future. Therefore, maintaining the same amount as now could be referred to as a `reduction' in some ways,'' Kim Jin-tae, the ministry's spokesman, said.
Environmental civic groups denounced the ministry. Green Fund said the ministry's plans are ``going completely in the opposite direction to international trends and that they are shameful.''
gallantjung@koreatimes.co.kr
bjs@koreatimes.co.kr
---
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/03/116_21121.html
1. Park, Dae-yun
2. Why Monsanto Doesn't Want You to Know About Those Hormones in Your Dairy
3.
Monsanto, the only producter of an artificial growth hormone, has tried to against labels attachment saying "rBST-free" because it can lead to company's finaicial loss.
I think we can apply this article to environmental theory, Marx's metabolism.
As we know, Marx’s metabolism is one of paradox of capital economy society to make ecological crisis caused by large-scale industry and large-scale agriculture under capitalism.
An artificial hormone has used to produce more milk or meat with lower price.
Many people have concerned about its problem.
They say, it might cause not only cow's health problem directly but also human's health indirectly.
This is a case of problem to pursue large-scale agriculture.
--------
4. New York state dairy farmer John Bunting doesn't use an artificial bovine growth hormone on his cows for one key reason. He doesn't want them getting sick. "I care about my cows," he said, "I like my cows."
The growth hormone in question is made by the Monsanto Company. The current debate about Monsanto's hormone involves labels. The multinational agricultural biotech company seems to be getting nervous about the prospect of telling consumers what's in their milk - or rather, what's not in their milk.
A Monsanto-backed advocacy group is now going from state to state, fighting labels that declare dairy products free from the bovine growth hormone. Monsanto is the only producer of an artificial hormone, the Posilac brand recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST or rBGH), that increases milk production in cows. Labels saying "rBST-free" could lead to financial losses for the corporation.
(Matt Mahurin) The growth hormone can mean more milk at cheaper prices. But Posilac has been linked to health problems in both cows and humans -- one reason the European Union and Canada both banned its use. Anti-labeling measures by Monsanto are facing a backlash from consumers who want to know what goes into their milk. Labeling would alert many to the fact that a large majority of American dairy products come from cows injected with the hormone. Many dairy processors are now using rBST-free alternative to meet these growing consumer concerns, for the hormone has been linked to cancer and other problems. Yet it doesn't look like the FDA-approved synthetic hormone will be pushed out of the market any time soon.
The advocacy group making the argument for Monsanto is American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology (AFACT) -- an organization that gets at least some financial backing from Monsanto. AFACT was established in 2007 by the consultant Monty G. Miller of the Colorado firm International Performance Solutions, whose client list includes Monsanto. In launching AFACT, Miller received help from the public relations firm Osborn & Barr, whose CEO, Steve Barr, is a former Monsanto marketing executive.
AFACT has been pressuring state agriculture departments and state legislators to introduce bills that would restrict hormone labels. Bills restricting "rBST-free" labels have popped up in several state legislatures -- including Kansas, Utah, Indiana and Missouri. In Pennsylvania and New Jersey, similar pro-hormone bills have already been voted down.
Most of the nation's leading dairy processors use milk from cows treated with the bovine growth hormone in at least some products. Land O'Lakes, Good Humor-Breyers, Dreyers, Dannon, Yoplait and Sargento are some of the biggest buyers of milk from rBST-treated cows. Dean Foods and Kraft, the leading U.S. dairy producers, use rBST milk in many products, but not all. In June, Kraft will introduce a line of rBST-free 2-percent milk products.
Kraft spokesman Basil Maglaris says the company is responding to a growing consumer movement. "We do understand that some consumers -- not all -- are looking for products from cows not treated with [rBST]," said Maglaris. "So we are converting the line to give those consumers an option."
Converting the line will mean an increase in price for those 2-percent products. But Kraft says that rBST-free products will attract new customers.
Many of those customers are pointing to related health concerns -- for both cows and humans. According to Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, rBST increases the risk of cancer by elevating levels of another hormone, IGF-1. High levels of IGF-1 can promote breast cancer, prostate cancer and colon cancer.
"If you have even just subtle amounts of IGF-1, there's a link to breast, prostate and colon cancer," said Dr. Jenny Pompilio, an internist with Kaiser Permanente in Oregon. "It's been known for years that that particular hormone is linked with cancers [because of its] effects on the endocrine system. The endocrine system is so sensitive that subtle effects can [make a difference]."
The other health concern affects first cows and then humans, says the Oregon physicians group. People who consume these dairy products could become resistant to antibiotics -- making them prone to bacterial infections. The resistance is directly related to health problems of cows injected with the hormone. These cows have higher rates of udder infections, or mastitis. When they are treated with antibiotics, resistant bacteria can grow. People who later eat dairy products from these cows can also build up resistance. When antibiotics cease to be effective, the threat of infectious diseases increases.
Monsanto says its synthetic hormone does not create problems. "POSILAC is perfectly healthy for cows," said Monsanto spokesperson Lori Hoag, "bST is a naturally occurring hormone in every cow -- rbST is an additional supplement of that naturally occurring hormone."
Hoag says that there is no difference between milk from cows injected with rBGH/rBST and other milk. "[A]ll milk is the same. All milk has bST, all milk has hormones," she said. "Labels that claim "rbST-free" are misleading to consumers, making them believe there is a difference in the milk, when, in fact, there is none."
But New York dairy farmer Bunting disagrees. He says that rBST is a whole protein off from naturally occurring BST. "If you created a molecule one protein different, you could not honestly say there could be no difference [between the two]," said Bunting. "Monsanto and the FDA are asking farmers and consumers to take a risk for which there is no known benefit."
While there may be no benefits when it comes to human health, economic gains could be great for some. Cows injected with the hormone produce roughly a gallon more milk a day than untreated cows. (On average, untreated cows produce about eight gallons a day.) That means dairy farmers can produce more milk at lower costs, and dairy processors can make their products at lower costs. Big dairy farmers, big dairy processors and Monsato all get more money.
But Bunting says that rBST poses risks to smaller dairy farms, including his own. He says big farms that use rBST to produce more milk could lead to smaller farms going under. "More milk means fewer farmers," said Bunting, "It does not benefit the [whole] farm community."
It could benefit consumers, though. Using rBST brings milk prices down. Monsanto's product therefore provides an option for people who just want less expensive milk, cheese and ice cream.
Monsanto says that labeling could be unfair to certain corporations. "[B]ecause there is no difference [between BST and rBST]," said spokesperson Hoag, "there is no way to verify whether or not rbST was used as a supplement. So, even though some processors claim their milk to be 'rbST-free,' they cannot prove that to be true."
The ice cream company GoodHumor-Breyers has concerns about this. "We purchase our dairy ingredients from cooperatives, and are unable to guarantee that rBGH is not used," said GoodHumor-Breyers spokesperson Andon Tate, "Currently, there is no test available that can distinguish between the naturally-occurring BST and the rBGH growth hormone."
But even consumers who don't care about the growth hormone's health effects, says consumer advocate Jill Richardson of Recipe for America, are speaking out against Monsanto's efforts to restrict dairy labeling. "Some people even say that they don't personally mind the idea of milk with rBST," she said, "but the dishonesty of this [anti-labeling] tactic makes them furious."
From: , Organic Consumers Association, More from this Affiliate
Published March 27, 2008
---
http://www.enn.com/agriculture/article/33666/
1. se kyoung, jung
2. No More Charges for Disposable Cups
3. i realized that ewhasarang, the cafe of posco building, is not refunding the guarantee money any more. this sudden change makes me sad.
I know that people are not that interested about reducing wastes, but i think this 'policy abolition' will make more cup wastes.
According to this article, the policy didn't work out for reducing wastes but for company promotion.
If a policy is not helpful for some reason, we have to fix it and make additional efforts, not abolishing it.
I hope president Lee and the Ministry of environment 'do something' for environment.
----------------------------------
No More Charges for Disposable Cups
By Bae Ji-sook
Staff Reporter
From Thursday, people will not have to pay 50-100 won for disposable cups at takeout restaurants. The Ministry of Environment said Tuesday that it will scrap rules requiring restaurants to collect the guarantee money intended to discourage the use of disposable cups.
The decision is in line with President Lee Myung-bak's campaign pledges to deregulate environment-related regulations, a ministry spokesman said.
For the moment, customers who buy cups will still be able to get refunds until the end of June.
The disposable cup fee was one of the most talked-about issues since its adoption in 2003.
The idea, to let people use disposable goods and pay for them but get refunds once they return them, was criticized for its unfeasibility in reducing the use of disposable goods.
Some said people still use the goods while fast food chains benefited from extra money.
Most restaurants held alleged environmental protection campaigns with money from unclaimed refunds. They sent out memos or little souvenirs but had their own logos on them as if using them for advertising.
Those opposing the fee said that most of the money collected through the system was used for company promotion, which was irrelevant to protecting the environment.
They said the refund rate of 39 percent meant most people did not really care about returning the cup to save the environment despite the extra 50-100 won fee.
The government said the intention may have been good, but since many do not follow it, the policy should be abolished.
However, environmentalists opposed the decision. They said using the money effectively should come first rather than abolishing the system. Kim Mi-hwa, the head of civic group Zero Waste, said about 72.7 percent of 1,308 people surveyed said they support the fee.
``It was actually the companies who voluntarily came up with ideas to reduce disposable goods. However, the government ruined it,'' she said.
bjs@koreatimes.co.kr
=================
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/03/117_20947.html
Post a Comment