by Ann Cleary

On November 5, it was unpleasant, though not unexpected, to learn that the US Federal Drug Administration (FDA) had approved the use of bovine somatotropin (bST), the hormone for increasing milk production in dairy cows. A 90-day moratorium on the marketing of bST means it will most likely not come into use before early February.

The FDA has been reviewing bovine growth hormone (bGH) for eight years and their press release, intended to reassure the public as to the safety of bST milk to humans, states: "There is virtually no difference in milk between treated and untreated cows"; they therefore conclude special labelling will not be required. Companies may label the milk if they wish, provided such labelling is "truthful and not misleading"! A post-approval monitoring will be established to ensure product safety and follow up on complaints.

There has been considerable concern about the effect of bST on the animals themselves, and even the FDA anticipates a "slightly increased" incidence of mastitis, already quite a problem in dairy cows. Mastitis is an udder infection which has increased considerably over the years as cows have been bred to produce more and more milk. The antibiotics needed to treat mastitis are considered negligible and as state laws require residue testing of milk, unsafe levels have to be discarded and producers responsible for violations are subject to regulatory sanctions. With a reduction in milk testing technicians and meat inspectors and other services, however one wonders how effective residue testing will be.

I have yet to meet a farmer who wants bST. One and all agree that it will lead to more mastitis, and greater production will shorten the life of the cows. Nor does the public want bST milk – the only way it will be accepted is by the public not knowing of its presence. But, as sure as milk is milk, Canada will soon follow in the footsteps of the US, whether the public wants it or not. Once the milk has been foisted on the public, it will be a walk-over for the next genetically engineered products to be marketed.

The fact that the European Community in August proposed to ban the use of bST milk for a further seven years will not likely influence Canada’s decision. EC's reasoning is that the use of bST would result in the concentration of milk production on bigger farms and have the effect of driving small farmers out of business, which is exactly what will happen in the US and in this country if it is allowed. The real problem is the incessant pressure in North America towards over-production; we do not need the 6 to 20 per cent increase that the use of bST is said to generate. What will happen to the excess milk production or to the dairy herds that will no longer be needed? As the EC does not buy much in the way of dairy products from North America, it seems quite easy to predict who will be a target of US surplus milk.

An interesting new bookcompares bGH technology with an alternative technology for milk production – rotational grazing. The Dairy Debate; Consequences of Bovine Growth Hormone and Rotational Grazing Technologies, edited by SAREP Director Bill Liebhardt and co-authored with William M. Murphy et al (372 pages), resulted from a 1990 study by many researchers to see how the two technologies affected a range of factors, including human safety and cow health. The study showed that smaller and mid-sized farms, and consequently the vitality of rural communities, would be hurt; it also indicated that the majority of consumers will not willingly accept the milk and they want bST milk labelled.

Liebhardt felt that the consequences of this new technology are so far-reaching that he took a broader look at bST and compared it with rotational grazing which offered dairy farmers a profitable alternative, rural communities the assurance that more small and mid-sized farms will stay in business, and consumers the assurance that their milk is a safe, wholesome, untainted product. Rotational grazing decreases or eliminates confinement feeding and shifts the work of harvesting and maintaining soil fertility back to the animal. He noted improved herd health and minimal mastitis-caused bacterial infections that contaminate milk and result in economic losses for dairies. Pasture-fed cows have higher reproductive performance and few metabolic and digestive disorders. Murphy noted that the flexibility of rotational grazing allowed farmers more time for personal, family and community life. Rayburn considered that pastures that have about double the amount of organic matter of corn would cut down on corn acreage, would result in 24 – 31 per cent less soil erosion and 23 – 26 per cent less fuel consumption in crop production, and would improve soil, air and water quality.

Also noted was the "treadmill effect" – as milk supplies increase, prices will eventually adjust to a point where producers are no better off than they were prior to using bST technology. The balance appears tipped well in favor of rotational grazing. The book can be obtained from: ANR Publications, University of California, 6701 San Pablo Ave., Oakland, CA 94608-1239 USA. Make out cheque or money order for $31.50 US to UC Regents. Fax (510) 643-5470.