Animal health concerns are certainly valid, as several analyses show that the hormones decrease fertility by 40%, increase the risk of mastitis, and increase the risk of lameness by 55%. Due to these problems, rBST treated cows are usually also administered more antibiotics, which can possibly leech into the milk and also increase the likelihood of development of super strains. Thus, it is conclusive that the drug causes animal health problems and decreases animal welfare.
A gangrenous udder for you to look at. |
Also concerning are possible human health impacts from the chemicals. Chemical analyses of the non rBST milk and rBST milk have shown that milk from hormone-treated cows has slightly elevated levels of BST. These hormones have however been shown to have no real effect on humans, and additionally if milk contains antibiotics as mentioned in the previous paragraph, it cannot be legally sold. What is concerning is IGF-1, which can also be increased in quantity by use of rBST/rBGH. This chemical has probable relationships to some tumors, as confirmed by the American Cancer Society, though how much is absorbed into the body through consumption of food is unclear.
I feel that rBGH (whose use has been decreased significantly already by consumer pressures -- one of the few times this has ever happened) should be bannned as it is in the European Union, not only because of the possible human health risks which are as of yet uninvestigated by our terrible excuse for a food safety administration, but also because of the typically unconsidered animal welfare concerns. If we must use (and abuse) animals for our own purposes, we should at least ensure that they are cared for properly, and rBST/rBGH is certainly not proper care, and so we should say no to possible cancer and no to definite cruelty for a slight increase in profit.
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/161/6/677.full
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBGH
http://awionline.org/content-types-orchid-legacy/awi-quarterly/rbgh-reconsidered
No comments:
Post a Comment