Monsanto & Cancer Milk FOX NEWS KILLS STORY & FIRES Reporters Submitted by legalizeliberty on Mon, 08/24/2009 - 12:53
Some propaganda from the piece:
If you consumed or fed regular milk to your family today, there is more than a 90% chance that it was from a cow injected with BGH
(Bovine somatotropin developed by using recombinant DNA technology).
You could be killing or harming your child every time you pour them a glass of milk, the same as pouring them a glass of slow acting poison.
Please take action to ensure our children's safety, for they can not protect themselves.
What first alarmed farmers was the massive amount of PUS in the milk but Monsanto and the FDA still had no concerns by stating that the PUS was not harmful when ingested by consumers!
If you have little children, at least feed them certified BGH free Milk, Organic Milk.
NOTE THE DATE State the facts Angie. Exactly what cancers have been experienced? How many people have been harmed? How many people have died? State the facts Angie.
The Food and Drug Administration[33], World Health Organization[4], the American Dietetic Association[28], and National Institutes of Health[34] have independently stated that dairy products and meat from BST-treated cows are safe for human consumption. The American Cancer Society issued a report declaring "The evidence for potential harm to humans [from rBGH milk] is inconclusive. It is not clear that drinking milk produced using rBGH significantly increases IGF-1 levels in humans or adds to the risk of developing cancer. More research is needed to help better address these concerns."[32]
Studies show that contrary to many beliefs rBST treated cows reduce the impact of green house gases in comparison to conventional and organic dairy operations. Furthermore, N and P excretion, two major environmental pollutants arising from animal agriculture, were reduced by 9.1% and 11.8%, respectively.[35] Carbon dioxide is recognized to be the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas, [36] live stock metabolism and fossil fuel consumption are the main sources of emissions from animal agriculture.
Live Stock Metabolism-Use of rBST in lactating cows decreases the quantity of energy and protein needed in comparison to conventional diary operations along with reducing the total feedstuff used. Fossil Fuel Consumption-Targets atmospheric pollution and resource sustainability environmental concerns. With cows treated with rBST, producing a higher milk yield reduces the feed requirement which in turn decreases with electricity for milk production and the energy required from fossil fuels for cropping.
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. [37] 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. [38]
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.[39] Just before the story was to air, Fox received a threatening letter from Monsanto, saying the reporters were biased and that the story would damage the company.[39] Fox tried to work with the reporters to address Monsanto's concerns;[39] Akre stated that she and Wilson went through 83 rewrites over eight months.[40] 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.[39] The reporters then sued Fox/WTVT in Florida state court under the state's whistleblower statute. In 2000, a Florida jury found that while there was no evidence Fox/WTVT had bowed to any pressure from Monsanto to alter the story, Akre, but not Wilson, was a whistleblower and was unjustly fired.[39] Fox appealed the decision stating that under Florida law, a whistleblower can only act if "a law, rule, or regulation”" has been broken and argued that the FCC's news distortion policy did not fit that definition.[41] The appeals court overturned the verdict, finding that Akre was not a whistleblower because of the Florida "legislature's requirement that agency statements that fit the definition of a "rule" (must) be formally adopted (rules). Recognizing an uncodified agency policy developed through the adjudicative process as the equivalent of a formally adopted rule is not consistent with this policy, and it would expand the scope of conduct that could subject an employer to liability beyond what Florida's Legislature could have contemplated when it enacted the whistle-blower's statute."[41]
FACT: They were not allowed to air their piece Martin - gee I wonder why?
FACT: Breast cancer has become so common over the last 20 years that it is no longer news worth. During the past half-century, the lifetime risk of breast cancer more than tripled in the United States. In the 1940s, a woman's lifetime risk of breast cancer was one in 22. In 2004, it was one in seven. In 2007, it decreased to one in eight.
Martin, Are you now conceding that Global Warming is a settled fact? I still think that Global Warming is junk science despite what Al Gore is selling. Science takes a long time to determine facts and Monsanto along with Al Gore can kiss my ass. I could probably find a Youtube video showing me how to build a rocket to the moon, but I prefer to let the experts, not a Mega-corp or a Mega-mouth show me the way.
Rockets have been around much longer than GMO's and rockets still occasionally blow up on the launch pad. Eat your Monsanto dinner while pondering that FACT.
Once again, I am not anti-business. I am one of the strongist business proponets out there, but messing with nature concerns me and I want ALL the facts, not just what a CEO tells us.
Two meta-analyses have been published on rBST's effects on bovine health.Findings indicated an average increase in milk output ranging from 11%–16%, a nearly 25% 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 even though there was an increase in their dry matter intake.
The use of rBST increases health problems with cows, including mastitis. In 1994 a European Union scientific commission was asked to report on the incidence of mastitis and other disorders in dairy cows and on other aspects of the welfare of dairy cows. The commission's statement, subsequently adopted by the European Union, 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 that, 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, although there was no significant health risk to humans, the drug presents a threat to animal health, and, for this reason, cannot be sold in Canada. Monsanto-sponsored trials reviewed by the FDA show that use of rBST makes cows more susceptible to mastitis.
The health of the animal is of the utmost importance as if the effects of the hormones will not be limited to only the cow. There is also the humanity factor.
Global Nutritional NeedsDairy InnovationMilk SafetyDairy Cow CareConsumer BenefitsFor the Media
HomeDairy Cow Care Dairy Cow Welfare is Vital The effects of rbST use on dairy cow performance and health weighed significantly on the FDA's decision to approve rbST in the United States and on a farmer's decision to use rbST. For nearly 20 years farmers have been supplementing their herds with rbST and scientists have continued to study cow health and wellbeing including effects that it has on culling (removal from herd), veterinary costs, lameness (failure to travel in a regular and sound manner on all four feet), reproduction and mastitis (udder infection). These studies — some evaluating thousands of cows on several hundred farms — show an increased milk production when rbST supplements are used but, between cows that were supplemented with rbST and cows which were not, there were no differences in cow health, culling or longevity.1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Read on for more information about the use of rbST and its impact on animal health and welfare. Dairy Cow Milk Production The biological functions of cows supplemented with rbST have been consistently shown to be similar to that of cows with the genetic capacity to produce more milk. There is an increase in both their milk production and a corresponding increase in the amount of feed they consume.8 If cows are stressed or have health problems, their milk production is decreased because more of the nutrients they consume go to fight disease and maintain the cow. Genetically superior cows and those supplemented with rbST have the opposite response — they have an increased milk production and are able to use more nutrients to support milk production.
Dairy Cow Care Most dairy farmers recognize that without a healthy herd, they have no potential for business prosperity. They would never do anything to intentionally jeopardize the health or well-being of their cows — including supplementing them with rbST. Using rbST costs money and its use provides no benefit when the performance of the cow herd is limited by inadequate nutrition or poor quality of management. Several studies in different countries have shown that when cows do not have enough feed or are subject to poor management, there will be no response to rbST supplementation9, 10, 11 — causing the farmer to lose the money that they have invested in rbST. Mastitis Since the FDA approval of rbST in 1993, there have been multiple studies involving hundreds of commercial dairy herds that looked at mastitis (udder infection), cultures for mastitis organisms, somatic cell counts, culling rates and veterinary costs. These studies found no evidence that commercial use of rbST represented a significant concern for mastitis or antibiotic usage or resistance.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13 A large portion of mastitis cases occur in the early stage of milk production (within the first two months), a period during which rbST is not being used to supplement cows. (It is important to note that the FDA-approved use of rbST does not take place immediately after the cow gives birth, but a number of weeks later when they have passed the most stressful part of lactation.) Research on the effect of rbST on mammary health have found no significant effects on the severity and duration of mastitis in dairy cows.1, 2, 3, 4, 12 The prevalence of mastitis in any dairy herd is dependent on the husbandry practices employed to manage the disease, such as milking hygiene, animal housing and cow comfort, and environmental sanitation. Dairymen are continuously upgrading their management practices to minimize disease in their herds, and specifically mastitis which is among the most costly disease. Other factors associated with mastitis of which producers have less management control are season of the year, parity (number of calves the cow has delivered), stage of milk production and cow age.14 The Posilac product label (pdf) contains complete use information, including cautions and warnings. Always read, understand, and follow the label and use directions. To increase production of marketable milk in healthy lactating dairy cows, supplement lactating dairy cows every 14 days beginning at 57–70 days in milk until the end of lactation.
1 Collier RJ et al. Effects of sustained release bovine somatotropin (sometribove) on animal health in commercial dairy herds. J Dairy Sci. 2001 May;84(5):1098–108. 2 McClary DG et al. The effects of a sustained-release recombinant bovine somatotropin(somidobove) on udder health for a full lactation. J Dairy Sci. 1994 Aug;77(8):2261–71. 3 Judge LJ et al. Recombinant bovine somatotropin and clinical mastitis: incidence, discarded milk following therapy, and culling. J Dairy Sci. 1997 Dec;80(12):3212–8. 4 Bauman DE. Production responses to bovine somatotropin in northeast dairy herds. J Dairy Sci. 1999 Dec;82(12):2564–73. 5 Tauer LW et al. The empirical impact of bovine somatotropin on New York dairy farms. J Dairy Sci. 1997 Jun;80(6):1092–7. 6 Wells SJ et al. Effect of long-term administration of a prolonged release formulation of bovine somatotropin (sometribove) in clinical lameness in dairy cows. Am J Vet Res. 1995 Aug;56(8):992–6. 7 Santos JEP et al. Effect of bST and reproductive management on reproductive performance of Holstein dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2004 Apr;87:868–881. 8 National Research Council. Metabolic modifiers — effects on the nutrient requirements of food-producing animals. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 1994. 9 Chalupa W and Galligan DT. Nutritional implications of somatotropin for Lactating Cows. J Dairy Sci. 1989 Oct;72(10):2510–24. 10 Hoogendoorn CJ et al. Production responses of New Zealand Friesian cows at pasture to exogenous recombinantly derived bovine somatotropin. Anim Prod. 1990. 51:431–439. 11 McGuire MA et al. Nutritional modulation of the somatotropin/insulin-like growth. 12 White TC et al. Clinical mastitis in cows treated with sometribove (recombinant bovine somatotropin) and its relationship to milk yield. J Dairy Sci. 1994 Aug;77:2249–60. 13 Ruegg PL et al. Effect of the use of bovine somatotropin on culling practices in thirty-two dairy herds in Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. J Dairy Sci. 1998 May;81(5):1262–6. 14 Cow factors in mastitis; and management and environmental factors in mastitis. Current concepts of bovine mastitis. Chapters 5–6. National Mastitis Council, Inc. Madison, WI. 1996.
"What first alarmed farmers was the massive amount of PUS in the milk but Monsanto and the FDA still had no concerns by stating that the PUS was not harmful when ingested by consumers!"
Perhaps so that purchasers and consumers of milk can actually buy milk the industry should devise a way to separate the PUS much like butter fat is removed and market it as a new high priced spread... like margarine but with a natural green tinge...
Nothing like a tall cold glass of your favourite PUS fortified milk...
My positon? .... I was merely stating that healthy or not... when pay for milk, I am none to keen to poor the sick essence of a cows utter into my glass just so some industrial scale dairy can churn more profits... (get it Churn... huh... yeah,... cleaver how I did that ah?). I stated no position on position for or against the premise of this post what so ever.... perhaps we have communications problems because of ... comprehension.
Or as to the line in Cool Hand Luke...."What we have here is failure to comuncate....Sum men you just can't reach."
Ah William, I can't tell you how enjoyable it is to see you so annoyed and be at odds with the righties here. What "the market" seems to be asking for is to simply be given the choice whether to consume GMO's or not consume them. Monsanto's claim is that if food has to be labeled with a GMO tag, it will unfairly be punished when it is perfectly safe. In essence, Monsanto is saying, "Fuck you, we know what is best for you and you don't need to decide anything."
Whether GMO's are perfectly safe of not is not my chief gripe. After all, people shove a lot of unhealthy shit in their piehole. What I choose to eat is also no concern of anyone else. I pay my money, I believe I have a right to know what is or isn't in my food. Those who create GMO's apparently disagree with me quite sharply. And again, beyond the issue of whether it is safe to eat or not, I have many gripes about not only the ruthless fucks who run Monsanto, but also with factory farming in general.
Slick propaganda piece.
ReplyDeleteState the facts these investigators based their position on Angie. It is a given that Canada and Europe are anti- science, anti-progress.
State the facts Angie.
Exactly what cancers have been experienced?
How many people have been harmed?
How many people have died?
State the facts Angie.
This bullshit becomes tiresome.
State your facts Angie.
Monsanto & Cancer Milk FOX NEWS KILLS STORY & FIRES Reporters
DeleteSubmitted by legalizeliberty on Mon, 08/24/2009 - 12:53
Some propaganda from the piece:
If you consumed or fed regular milk to your family today, there is more than a 90% chance that it was from a cow injected with BGH
(Bovine somatotropin developed by using recombinant DNA technology).
You could be killing or harming your child every time you pour them a glass of milk, the same as pouring them a glass of slow acting poison.
Please take action to ensure our children's safety, for they can not protect themselves.
What first alarmed farmers was the massive amount of PUS in the milk but Monsanto and the FDA still had no concerns by stating that the PUS was not harmful when ingested by consumers!
If you have little children, at least feed them certified BGH free Milk, Organic Milk.
NOTE THE DATE
State the facts Angie.
Exactly what cancers have been experienced?
How many people have been harmed?
How many people have died?
State the facts Angie.
Wiki:
DeleteThe Food and Drug Administration[33], World Health Organization[4], the American Dietetic Association[28], and National Institutes of Health[34] have independently stated that dairy products and meat from BST-treated cows are safe for human consumption. The American Cancer Society issued a report declaring "The evidence for potential harm to humans [from rBGH milk] is inconclusive. It is not clear that drinking milk produced using rBGH significantly increases IGF-1 levels in humans or adds to the risk of developing cancer. More research is needed to help better address these concerns."[32]
Wiki:
DeleteEnvironmental Impact
Studies show that contrary to many beliefs rBST treated cows reduce the impact of green house gases in comparison to conventional and organic dairy operations. Furthermore, N and P excretion, two major environmental pollutants arising from animal agriculture, were reduced by 9.1% and 11.8%, respectively.[35] Carbon dioxide is recognized to be the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas, [36] live stock metabolism and fossil fuel consumption are the main sources of emissions from animal agriculture.
Live Stock Metabolism-Use of rBST in lactating cows decreases the quantity of energy and protein needed in comparison to conventional diary operations along with reducing the total feedstuff used.
Fossil Fuel Consumption-Targets atmospheric pollution and resource sustainability environmental concerns. With cows treated with rBST, producing a higher milk yield reduces the feed requirement which in turn decreases with electricity for milk production and the energy required from fossil fuels for cropping.
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. [37] 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. [38]
Wiki:
DeleteLawsuit 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.[39] Just before the story was to air, Fox received a threatening letter from Monsanto, saying the reporters were biased and that the story would damage the company.[39] Fox tried to work with the reporters to address Monsanto's concerns;[39] Akre stated that she and Wilson went through 83 rewrites over eight months.[40] 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.[39] The reporters then sued Fox/WTVT in Florida state court under the state's whistleblower statute. In 2000, a Florida jury found that while there was no evidence Fox/WTVT had bowed to any pressure from Monsanto to alter the story, Akre, but not Wilson, was a whistleblower and was unjustly fired.[39] Fox appealed the decision stating that under Florida law, a whistleblower can only act if "a law, rule, or regulation”" has been broken and argued that the FCC's news distortion policy did not fit that definition.[41] The appeals court overturned the verdict, finding that Akre was not a whistleblower because of the Florida "legislature's requirement that agency statements that fit the definition of a "rule" (must) be formally adopted (rules). Recognizing an uncodified agency policy developed through the adjudicative process as the equivalent of a formally adopted rule is not consistent with this policy, and it would expand the scope of conduct that could subject an employer to liability beyond what Florida's Legislature could have contemplated when it enacted the whistle-blower's statute."[41]
FACT: They were not allowed to air their piece Martin - gee I wonder why?
DeleteFACT: Breast cancer has become so common over the last 20 years that it is no longer news worth. During the past half-century, the lifetime risk of breast cancer more than tripled in the United States. In the 1940s, a woman's lifetime risk of breast cancer was one in 22. In 2004, it was one in seven. In 2007, it decreased to one in eight.
Ask Why Martin!
Talk about eating up the propaganda Martin.. are you full yet ...
DeleteYou have correlated breast cancer with rBST Angie.
DeleteYou have correlated breast cancer with rBST Angie?
How do you draw this conclusion Angie?
How do you correlate a perceived rate of increase in breast cancer with rBST Angie?
How Angie?
How?
How?
Echo, how?
Thank you William.
ReplyDeleteWell, the water boy must have found a new sponsor. The Kochs stop paying?
ReplyDeleteWhere are your facts wise ass?
DeleteWhere?
Where O where O where?
Why don't you just shut the f--- up when you don't have any.
Let us look at more FACTS Martin.
ReplyDeleteWhen you mess with nature, she has a way of biting you in the ass. Mad Cow disease comes to mind.
So we messed with the cows hormones and they got mad?
DeleteYou just correlated rBST with mad cow disease?
Perhaps you should produce some sort of proof of this?
You know proof? As in FACTS!
Laughable
Martin,
ReplyDeleteAre you now conceding that Global Warming is a settled fact? I still think that Global Warming is junk science despite what Al Gore is selling. Science takes a long time to determine facts and Monsanto along with Al Gore can kiss my ass. I could probably find a Youtube video showing me how to build a rocket to the moon, but I prefer to let the experts, not a Mega-corp or a Mega-mouth show me the way.
Rockets have been around much longer than GMO's and rockets still occasionally blow up on the launch pad. Eat your Monsanto dinner while pondering that FACT.
Once again, I am not anti-business. I am one of the strongist business proponets out there, but messing with nature concerns me and I want ALL the facts, not just what a CEO tells us.
I simply don't know how to respond to this pile of horseshit.
DeleteNow we're correlating GMO's with global warming, rockets, and that shit head al gore?
Two meta-analyses have been published on rBST's effects on bovine health.Findings indicated an average increase in milk output ranging from 11%–16%, a nearly 25% 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 even though there was an increase in their dry matter intake.
ReplyDeleteThe use of rBST increases health problems with cows, including mastitis.
In 1994 a European Union scientific commission was asked to report on the incidence of mastitis and other disorders in dairy cows and on other aspects of the welfare of dairy cows. The commission's statement, subsequently adopted by the European Union, 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 that, 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, although there was no significant health risk to humans, the drug presents a threat to animal health, and, for this reason, cannot be sold in Canada.
Monsanto-sponsored trials reviewed by the FDA show that use of rBST makes cows more susceptible to mastitis.
The health of the animal is of the utmost importance as if the effects of the hormones will not be limited to only the cow. There is also the humanity factor.
Deletehttps://www.globaldairyinnovation.com/dairy-cow-nutrition/Default.aspx
Delete
DeleteGlobal Nutritional NeedsDairy InnovationMilk SafetyDairy Cow CareConsumer BenefitsFor the Media
HomeDairy Cow Care
Dairy Cow Welfare is Vital
The effects of rbST use on dairy cow performance and health weighed significantly on the FDA's decision to approve rbST in the United States and on a farmer's decision to use rbST.
For nearly 20 years farmers have been supplementing their herds with rbST and scientists have continued to study cow health and wellbeing including effects that it has on culling (removal from herd), veterinary costs, lameness (failure to travel in a regular and sound manner on all four feet), reproduction and mastitis (udder infection). These studies — some evaluating thousands of cows on several hundred farms — show an increased milk production when rbST supplements are used but, between cows that were supplemented with rbST and cows which were not, there were no differences in cow health, culling or longevity.1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Read on for more information about the use of rbST and its impact on animal health and welfare.
Dairy Cow Milk Production
The biological functions of cows supplemented with rbST have been consistently shown to be similar to that of cows with the genetic capacity to produce more milk. There is an increase in both their milk production and a corresponding increase in the amount of feed they consume.8
If cows are stressed or have health problems, their milk production is decreased because more of the nutrients they consume go to fight disease and maintain the cow. Genetically superior cows and those supplemented with rbST have the opposite response — they have an increased milk production and are able to use more nutrients to support milk production.
Dairy Cow Care
DeleteMost dairy farmers recognize that without a healthy herd, they have no potential for business prosperity. They would never do anything to intentionally jeopardize the health or well-being of their cows — including supplementing them with rbST.
Using rbST costs money and its use provides no benefit when the performance of the cow herd is limited by inadequate nutrition or poor quality of management. Several studies in different countries have shown that when cows do not have enough feed or are subject to poor management, there will be no response to rbST supplementation9, 10, 11 — causing the farmer to lose the money that they have invested in rbST.
Mastitis
Since the FDA approval of rbST in 1993, there have been multiple studies involving hundreds of commercial dairy herds that looked at mastitis (udder infection), cultures for mastitis organisms, somatic cell counts, culling rates and veterinary costs. These studies found no evidence that commercial use of rbST represented a significant concern for mastitis or antibiotic usage or
resistance.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13
A large portion of mastitis cases occur in the early stage of milk production (within the first two months), a period during which rbST is not being used to supplement cows. (It is important to note that the FDA-approved use of rbST does not take place immediately after the cow gives birth, but a number of weeks later when they have passed the most stressful part of lactation.)
Research on the effect of rbST on mammary health have found no significant effects on the severity and duration of mastitis in dairy cows.1, 2, 3, 4, 12
The prevalence of mastitis in any dairy herd is dependent on the husbandry practices employed to manage the disease, such as milking hygiene, animal housing and cow comfort, and environmental sanitation. Dairymen are continuously upgrading their management practices to minimize disease in their herds, and specifically mastitis which is among the most costly disease. Other factors associated with mastitis of which producers have less management control are season of the year, parity (number of calves the cow has delivered), stage of milk production and cow age.14
The Posilac product label (pdf) contains complete use information, including cautions and warnings. Always read, understand, and follow the label and use directions.
To increase production of marketable milk in healthy lactating dairy cows, supplement lactating dairy cows every 14 days beginning at 57–70 days in milk until the end of lactation.
1 Collier RJ et al. Effects of sustained release bovine somatotropin (sometribove) on animal health in commercial dairy herds. J Dairy Sci. 2001 May;84(5):1098–108.
Delete2 McClary DG et al. The effects of a sustained-release recombinant bovine somatotropin(somidobove) on udder health for a full lactation. J Dairy Sci. 1994 Aug;77(8):2261–71.
3 Judge LJ et al. Recombinant bovine somatotropin and clinical mastitis: incidence, discarded milk following therapy, and culling. J Dairy Sci. 1997 Dec;80(12):3212–8.
4 Bauman DE. Production responses to bovine somatotropin in northeast dairy herds. J Dairy Sci. 1999 Dec;82(12):2564–73.
5 Tauer LW et al. The empirical impact of bovine somatotropin on New York dairy farms. J Dairy Sci. 1997 Jun;80(6):1092–7.
6 Wells SJ et al. Effect of long-term administration of a prolonged release formulation of bovine somatotropin (sometribove) in clinical lameness in dairy cows. Am J Vet Res. 1995 Aug;56(8):992–6.
7 Santos JEP et al. Effect of bST and reproductive management on reproductive performance of Holstein dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2004 Apr;87:868–881.
8 National Research Council. Metabolic modifiers — effects on the nutrient requirements of food-producing animals. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. 1994.
9 Chalupa W and Galligan DT. Nutritional implications of somatotropin for Lactating Cows. J Dairy Sci. 1989 Oct;72(10):2510–24.
10 Hoogendoorn CJ et al. Production responses of New Zealand Friesian cows at pasture to exogenous recombinantly derived bovine somatotropin. Anim Prod. 1990. 51:431–439.
11 McGuire MA et al. Nutritional modulation of the somatotropin/insulin-like growth.
12 White TC et al. Clinical mastitis in cows treated with sometribove (recombinant bovine somatotropin) and its relationship to milk yield. J Dairy Sci. 1994 Aug;77:2249–60.
13 Ruegg PL et al. Effect of the use of bovine somatotropin on culling practices in thirty-two dairy herds in Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. J Dairy Sci. 1998 May;81(5):1262–6.
14 Cow factors in mastitis; and management and environmental factors in mastitis. Current concepts of bovine mastitis. Chapters 5–6. National Mastitis Council, Inc. Madison, WI. 1996.
"What first alarmed farmers was the massive amount of PUS in the milk but Monsanto and the FDA still had no concerns by stating that the PUS was not harmful when ingested by consumers!"
ReplyDeletePerhaps so that purchasers and consumers of milk can actually buy milk the industry should devise a way to separate the PUS much like butter fat is removed and market it as a new high priced spread... like margarine but with a natural green tinge...
Nothing like a tall cold glass of your favourite PUS fortified milk...
Got PUS? ;-)
DeleteHighly scientific response Scott. Nice job.
DeleteI expected more from you than the likes of Max. But since you can't even source your spew why do I even bother.
You need to sit down and rethink your positions honestly Scott.
My positon? .... I was merely stating that healthy or not... when pay for milk, I am none to keen to poor the sick essence of a cows utter into my glass just so some industrial scale dairy can churn more profits... (get it Churn... huh... yeah,... cleaver how I did that ah?). I stated no position on position for or against the premise of this post what so ever.... perhaps we have communications problems because of ... comprehension.
DeleteOr as to the line in Cool Hand Luke...."What we have here is failure to comuncate....Sum men you just can't reach."
The real reason for your protest is exposed.
Deleteprofit
Closet socialist u r Scott
moo moo
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOh yea... the source.... your first cut and paste from the article..... :-)
ReplyDeleteAh William, I can't tell you how enjoyable it is to see you so annoyed and be at odds with the righties here. What "the market" seems to be asking for is to simply be given the choice whether to consume GMO's or not consume them. Monsanto's claim is that if food has to be labeled with a GMO tag, it will unfairly be punished when it is perfectly safe. In essence, Monsanto is saying, "Fuck you, we know what is best for you and you don't need to decide anything."
ReplyDeleteWhether GMO's are perfectly safe of not is not my chief gripe. After all, people shove a lot of unhealthy shit in their piehole. What I choose to eat is also no concern of anyone else. I pay my money, I believe I have a right to know what is or isn't in my food. Those who create GMO's apparently disagree with me quite sharply. And again, beyond the issue of whether it is safe to eat or not, I have many gripes about not only the ruthless fucks who run Monsanto, but also with factory farming in general.
How much do you get paid to shill for them?