TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/052989/05298900.001

Text File | 1992-09-23 | 4KB | 72 lines

                                                                                TECHNOLOGY, Page 77

A Furious Battle over Milk


Farmers fear a biotech protein that could produce a dairy glut


    To its manufacturers the hormone represents the dawn of a
dazzling new era in agriculture. To its critics, however, it
poses a dangerous threat to the prosperity of dairy farmers and
the wholesome image of "nature's perfect food." The product is
bovine somatotropin, a natural protein found in cattle that has
been artificially mass-produced in the labs of several
pharmaceutical firms. When injected into dairy cows, BST can
increase their milk production up to 25%. But would the use of
BST create a milk glut that could drive down dairy prices? And
would consumers view milk from BST-treated cows as artificial
and somehow tainted?

    Those questions have ignited debate over BST, which is the
first major product that the fledgling biotechnology industry
has developed for agriculture. The hormone has been used in
several West European nations, the Soviet Union and South
Africa. But opposition is intense. The European Parliament, for
example, has recommended that its member countries prohibit the
sale of meat or milk from BST-treated cows, and two provinces
in Canada have temporarily halted the distribution of such
products. In the U.S. the Food and Drug Administration is
considering whether to approve the use of BST amid rising
protests from concerned dairy states. Wisconsin's agriculture
secretary has proposed a moratorium of up to three years on the
use of BST while its economic consequences are studied, and
several dairy cooperatives in California said they will not
accept BST-treated milk.

    The four U.S. companies that make BST -- Monsanto, Eli
Lilly, Upjohn and American Cyanamid -- are having trouble
understanding why it is so controversial. They point out that
BST is a natural hormone produced by a cow's pituitary gland and
present in all milk. In fact, they assert, milk from BST-treated
cows has no more BST than regular milk. The companies contend
that BST injections would merely enable dairy farmers to produce
the same amount of milk with fewer cows. "BST is about
efficiency," asserts Monsanto spokesman Laurence O'Neill. Says
Stephen White, BST project manager for American Cyanamid: "The
thought that we are going to turn the rivers white with milk is
a myth."

    Others are not so sure. "In this business, if the
production goes up, the price goes down," complains John
Zonneveld, a dairy farmer in Laton, Calif. "The only guy who's
going to gain from BST is the guy who manufactures the stuff."

    Some dairy officials are worried about tampering with milk
at a time when the public is already nervous about food safety.
"You're monkeying around with a product that has a natural
image," warns Adri Boudewyn, spokesman for the California Milk
Advisory Board. The dairy industry is concerned that critics of
BST will try to turn public opinion against the hormone.
Anti-BST television and radio commercials have already been
produced but have not yet aired. One 30-second TV spot, created
by Jeremy Rifkin, the flamboyant Washington-based opponent of
most biotechnology, features a glass of milk with a hypodermic
syringe lying beside it. A voice asks, "What are they doing to
our milk?"

    But milk buyers would be well advised to ignore that scare
tactic. Unless BST is shown to pose a health hazard to cows or
humans, the main question will be one of economics and
politics: Should the financial interests of dairy farmers be put
above the right of consumers to have lower milk prices?