“What kind of farmers are we? Do we want to distinguish ourselves from other farmers?” Ben Sadeghi asks as he walks his small, family-run Kamuela dairy farm on the Big Island.
Those “other farmers” he is referring to are some 30 percent of the nation’s dairymen who inject their cows with rBGH, or recombinant bovine growth hormone (sometimes called bovine somatotropin, or BST). The hormone reportedly increases a cow’s milk production between 5 and 20 percent. It has also been known to increase the incidence of several types of illnesses in cows and has been accused of everything from endangering the livelihood of small farms to promoting colon and breast cancer in consumers.
On November 5, 1993, Posilac, Monsanto Corporation’s version of rBGH, received U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for commercial use on cattle. Shortly afterward, each of the Honolulu dailies ran a brief article on the local dairy community’s decision to hold off using the hormone.
“Isle milk free of controversial hormone” read the headline in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin of February 2, 1994, announcing that Hawai`i dairy farmers would “postpone” the use of rBGH.
That was years ago, Sadeghi says, when “I was in a room with other farmers and the milk commissioner brought us together so we could say Hawai`i is BST-free.”
Since then, there has been no further mention of the use of rBGH in island dairies.
So where do Hawai`i’s dairy farmers stand today?
As far as Sadeghi knows, local farmers, at least on the Big Island, are still holdouts against the hormone. But, on O`ahu, sources close to the dairy industry acknowledge reluctantly that at least one dairy farmer is using rBGH.
Classified Information
Peter Oshiro, milk sampler for the state Department of Health’s Sanitation Division, makes frequent inspections of O`ahu dairies and has a good understanding of dairy farmers’ practices, including their use of prescription drugs and other production-enhancing techniques. While rBGH is not a prescription drug and is not regulated by DOH, Oshiro is aware “that there are some [O`ahu farmers] that are using it.” He declined to name those farmers saying “I don’t know if I can divulge that.”
Disclosing such information is apparently a delicate matter.
On the record, Randy Kamiya of the state Department of Agriculture’s Milk Control Section says that none of the Hawai`i’s dairy farmers are using rBGH.
But Dave Kugel, owner of Wai`anae’s Evergreen Hillside dairy and vice president of the Hawai`i Island Fresh Dairy Industry disputes that.
When the hormone got FDA approval, Kugel told Environment Hawai`i, dairymen agreed to a one-year moratorium on its use because they were concerned about the media attention and its possible effect on milk sales.
Today, however, “off the top of my head,” he says, perhaps 20 percent of the state’s dairy farmers use rBGH. It is difficult to know for sure, he adds, because, “first a farmer will say he is using the hormone, then he’ll say he isn’t.”
It’s the same on the mainland. In an 1995 article appearing in The Vegetarian Times, Tom Haller, executive director of Community Alliance with Family Farming in California, was quoted as saying, “Some [dairy farmers] are denying it. Nobody wants to admit that they’re actually using it because there’s such a negative view of it.”
Insidious Imports
Suppose none of Hawai`i’s dairy farmers used rBGH. There would still be the plethora of yogurt, cheeses, ice creams, milk, and other dairy products imported from the mainland to consider.
Hawai`i has about 60 milk operations. Most of the 130 million pounds of milk produced each year comes from about a dozen large, commercially licensed dairies. This is not enough to meet the residents’ demands. Kamiya, milk specialist with the Department of Agriculture, encourages consumers to buy milk with the “Island Fresh” logo (milk from Hawai`i dairies), and says that mainland milk is almost two weeks old before. “Island Fresh” milk, he says, is maybe two days old when it reaches stores.
However, there’s no getting around the need to use imported milk. With island dairies producing 36,500 gallons of milk a day on average, and residents drinking 62,500 gallons a day, supermarkets must import packaged milk and the state’s two processors — Meadow Gold and Foremost — must purchase mainland milk in bulk to meet their demands.
The Vegetarian Times reports that rBGH use is low where family farms dominate, as in Vermont and Wisconsin; and is more likely to be used in larger dairies, such as those found in Florida and the Southwest. Probably 90 percent of the milk imported to Hawai`i comes from dairies in the Southwest where rBGH is used, Kugel says.
Does Anyone Care?…
Call the dairy manager in almost any supermarket in Hawai`i — Foodland, Safeway, Daiei, Star, etc. They’ll tell you that they’ve never received any statement of concern or question regarding rBGH from their customers.
According to Alissa Alcosiba, a marketing representative of the Big Island Dairy Co-op and secretary for the Hawai`i Island Fresh Milk Industry, the average customer is not concerned or perhaps is not informed about rBGH.
“Whenever we do a county fair or a trade or food show, people ask us [about rBGH],”she says. “But when we’re at the supermarket doing sampling, they don’t. Unless we’re at a target area with environmentally savvy people — like vegetarians — the average Joe doesn’t ask. Consumers are more concerned with E. coli than rBGH.”
(Actually, there’s more of a connection than consumers might think. To make rBGH, a snippet of cow DNA is inserted into the DNA of E. coli bacteria. From huge vats of this bacterial soup, manufacturers extract quantities of rBGH.)
… and Why Should They?
What’s the big deal if dairy shelves are filled products made of milk from rBGH-treated cows? Users and manufacturers claim there is absolutely no difference between milk from cows treated with rBGH and that from non-treated cows.
This point was driven home in a 15-page update on rBGH issued in January by the International Dairy Foods Association (IFDA). “FDA’s conclusion on the safety of [rBGH] has been echoed by the National Institutes of Health, the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Dietetic Association, as well as the European Union (who voted against BST use purely for socio-economic reasons), the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, and the Institute of Foods Science and Technology in Great Britain,” according to the document, provided to Environment Hawai`i by Meadow Gold Dairies. (Meadow Gold is known as a dairy processor, but it also owns a number of dairies throughout the islands.)
The IFDA avoids mentioning the fact Canada has banned rBGH, and that not everyone interprets the European Union’s prohibition as having been based strictly on “socio-economic reasons.”
In fact, on January 15, Health Canada, the equivalent agency in Canada to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, announced the ban on rBGH would not be lifted. Among other factors, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association had concluded the hormone was unsafe for use in animals.
Monsanto first applied for Canadian government approval of Posilac, its brand name for rBGH, in 1990, approximately the same time it applied for FDA approval in the United States.
Unlike officials at the FDA, Health Canada officials decided to review the data obtained by Monsanto in studies of rats injected with rBGH. The Canadian scientists discovered that between 20 and 30 percent of rats exposed in tests lasting just 90 days had developed immunological reactions and thyroid cysts. In male rats, rBGH was found to have infiltrated prostate glands.
The Canadian scientists’ review of Monsanto data has caused the FDA’s decision to come under fire from the Center for Food Safety and other consumer groups. They claim the agency approved rBGH without properly reviewing Monsanto’s test data. In October 1998, FDA official John Scheid acknowledged to the Associated Press that the FDA had never analyzed the raw data from Monsanto’s rat study and, instead, based its approval on a summary of the study Monsanto had provided. On the basis of that summary, the FDA made its determination that there were no toxicologicaly significant changes in rats given rBGH and declined to require further tests of its toxicity to humans.
Since then, CFS and more than 24 other consumer groups have petitioned the FDA to reverse its approval of rBGH.
The toxicologically significant changes in the test rats “should have triggered a full human health review, including assessment of potential carcinogenic and immunological effects,” Michael Hansen, a researcher with the Consumer Policy Institute was quoted as saying in a December press release announcing the petition. The CPI is a division of the Consumers Union.
The injection of rBGH into a milk cow stimulates the production of Insulin Growth Factor-1, which stimulates milk production. Since rBGH has been approved, there have been several studies that indicate that IGF-1 levels increase in milk from cows treated with rBGH. There have also been recent studies — a 1996 article in the International Journal of Health Services, and a January 1998 Harvard study published in Science, for example — that link elevated levels of IGF-1 to cancer.
Dairies in Decline
Whether Hawai`i consumers will be seeing even more dairy products made of milk from rBGH-treated cows depends in no small measure on the health of local dairies. If they can sustain decent milk production levels through conventional means, they won’t have to use rBGH. And if they produce enough to supply all of Hawai`i, then the import of milk from rBGH-treated cows would decrease.
But given the industry’s rocky history, minimizing the presence of rBGH in Hawai`i won’t be easy.
About 50 years ago, Hawai`i had more than 100 dairies. The farms were small, averaging 15 to 20 cows. During World War II, many of the smaller farms of two to five cows were turned over to the military to supply troops with dairy products, according to a February 1989 dairy industry analysis by University of Hawai`i researchers Chin Lee, Noel Kefford, and Kenneth Rohrbach.
By the late 1970s, the report continues, the number of farms shrank to fewer than 30, as a result of dairy relocations to the mainland, competition from other beverages, higher feed costs, and limited acreage.
In the early 1980s, the industry’s attempt to cut costs backfired, the report stated, when pineapple mash feed, laced with heptachlor, was fed to cows, which, in turn, contaminated their milk.
“The result led to the first threat of mainland milk importation into the islands. The heptachlor incident caused a vacuum for milk that could only be satisfied by mainland importation. It also seeded a poor image for the local industry. The public felt that their trust and support were wrongfully violated,” the report states.
This incident, as well as high feed cost, prompted poorer farmers to sell out or consolidate, a trend that would continue into the next decade. By the end of the 1980s, there were fewer, but bigger, dairy farms in Hawai`i, with the average farm having 530 cows.
Cows that had been fed heptachlor-tainted feed were removed from milk production. And in the hot summer months of the late 1980s, the remaining cows, as usual, ate less. The overall result was poor cow reproduction rates and low milk production. This, in turn, led to shortages that were exacerbated when school began in the fall, according to the report.
To address the shortages, local dairies bought more cows and, the report says, entered the 1990s with redoubled efforts to resolve the age-old obstacles facing milk producers in Hawai`i: insufficient water, land, and finances; waste management policies; poor cow reproduction rates; and nutrition problems, among others.
Staying Alive
Thus, while the debate over the use of bioengineered technology in dairying raged on the mainland, Hawai`i’s dairy industry was busy addressing more basic problems, like dealing with weather.
“Dairying is very difficult in Hawai`i. Every environment has its own unique weather problems. Either it’s too dry in Wai`anae or too wet on the windward side,” Ben Sadeghi says. His Ahualoa farm is the smallest on the Big Island and the second smallest in the state.
According to Sadeghi, 42 degrees is the optimal environmental temperature for dairy cows to produce milk. In Hawai`i, where drops below 50 degrees would be cause for alarm, the effects of heat stress on milk production is a big problem for local farmers.
In 1994, five local researchers, headed by CTAHR dairy specialist Chin Lee, conducted studies intended to help them design ways of spurring milk production through basic management techniques. They looked at heat stress on cows at UH-Manoa’s Waile`e Experimental Station, where they compared the profiles of reproductive hormones in lactating cows in shade against those of cows in no-shade environments. This suggested that heat stress impeded estrus behavior and prolonged the estrus cycle of the cows — in other words, heat is bad for milk production. The scientists concluded that “a simple shade structure can help improve estrus detection, prevent abnormal endocrine profiles, and reduce stress due to solar radiation on cows in subtropical areas such as Hawai`i.”
In November 1995, Hawai`i’s dairy farmers and processors formed the Hawai`i Fresh Milk Industry, Inc., a statewide organization through which concerns such as aging farmers, environmental regulations and waste management, high land costs, etc. could be addressed. Only 14 dairies and two processors — Meadow Gold and Foremost — remained in the islands by this time.
A few months later, several dairy farmers were buying new chillers to cool milk faster and improve the quality of their milk; were trying to boost milk production by installing more efficient fans in the corrals and holding areas; and were improving lighting so the cows could better find their feed. Total cost for these projects was $320,000, $160,000 from the Electric Power Research Institute, $100,000 from the state, and $60,000 from the dairies themselves.
Fighting Cheap Imports
Next, in 1996, the dairy industry sought help in the form of an increase in the base price of milk, which is set by state government. Four dairies had closed in recent years. Feed costs had climbed 30 to 40 percent since 1995, and milk production in hot weather had declined 30 percent.
Farmers were going broke and a ceiling increase was “essential to survival,” according to one newspaper article. In December 1996, the Board of Agriculture approved a $4 per 100 pounds increase in the base price. Governor Ben Cayetano disapproved it, initially, but was swayed a few months later by O`ahu dairymen to raise the minimum price of 100 pounds of raw milk from $23.20 to $27.20.
The move pleased milk producers, but not the processors.
When approval of the hike seemed eminent, Foremost and Meadow Gold promised the public that retail prices would increase at least 30 cents a gallon. News reports in March and April 1997 Star Bulletin were littered with comments from consumers bemoaning the high cost of milk, and the threat of increased importation of cheaper mainland products loomed. (As early as 1991, Safeway had dropped local Foremost milk from 16 stores in Hawai`i in favor of Safeway’s Lucerne brand, which is imported. Newspaper reports at the time said imports accounted for 70 percent of Safeway milk sales, with Meadow Gold making up the balance. In 1996, Star Market President John Fujeki was quoted as saying that half of his market’s milk came from the mainland, the other half from local processors.)
With respect to the 1997 price hike, one Foremost representative was quoted as saying, “[The] increase could force Foremost to consider buying less locally produced raw milk and more from the mainland, which is cheaper (mainland farmers pay less for grain and other essentials).”
But Kugel, then president of the Fresh Milk Industry, held the processors responsible for rising retail prices, not the dairy farmers. “Proof that the milk industry overcharges can be found at food warehouse chains like Costco, where gallon-size milk jugs bearing the words ‘Island Fresh’ are sold cheaper than mainland milk in the supermarkets,” Kugel was quoted as saying in one news report.
A solution emerged during the 1997 Legislature, which passed a new pricing formula for milk. With the governor’s approval, the minimum price of 100 pounds of raw local milk would be the price of the same amount of Northern California milk, plus $12.20. The $12.20 is roughly the equivalent to the costs Foremost and Meadow Gold incur when importing mainland milk.
Consolidation
Today, dairying in Hawai`i is still changing. The state has lost half of its dairy farmers over the last decade, due in part to the age of the people involved, Ben Sadeghi says. Sadeghi, who is 35 years old, does most of his business with people who are in their 70s and 80s.
“Kids nowadays are not interested [in dairy farming], where you work seven days a week, two to three shifts per day,” he says.
Hawai`i’s dairy industry mirrors the mainland trend of consolidation. Meadow Gold has bought out several of Hawai`i’s dairies in the past decade; Waimanalo Dairy, Wai`anae’s Toledo Twin Pine Dairy, and Maui’s and Kaua`i’s only dairies. Last August, Meadow Gold also bought out Excelsior Dairy, which was the Foremost processor on the Big Island. Now all Big Island milk is processed by Meadow Gold.
Label-Shy
When rBGH was in the media spotlight, surveys showed that, hands down, consumers did not want rBGH in their milk, and wanted their milk labeled as to whether or not it contained the hormone.
“In eleven different surveys, American consumers have indicated overwhelmingly that they do not want milk that contains genetically-engineered hormones, and that they want milk labeled so they can make an informed choice in the grocery store,” reported the March 17, 1994 edition of Rachel’s Hazardous Waste News (now known as Rachel’s Environment & Health Weekly).
When the topic still held the public’s attention, local dairy farmers came out in unison, not against the hormone, but against using it right away. When the fight to stay afloat and to compete with mainland competitors led to new technology projects and price haggling, the local dairy community did not opt to raise an Island-Fresh milk=rBGH-free flag.
It’s fair to say that local milk has less rBGH in it than mainland milk, considering Dave Kugel’s opinion on the source of imported milk. Local milk is labeled “Island Fresh,” to distinguish it from imported milk (even though cartons so labeled may contain some fraction of imported milk). Also, the FDA has no objection to BGH labels, so long as they state that that agency has found no difference between milk from treated and untreated cows.
So why hasn’t Hawai`i used rBGH-free labels as one way to compete against mainland milk imports?
According to reports in the October 1996 and the November 1997 Vegetarian Times, Hawai`i is one of four states (the others are Nevada, Oklahoma and Illinois) where dairy producers are prohibited from labeling their products as rBGH-free. In fact, no law bans such labeling. However, says Kamiya, it is the policy of the state Department of Agriculture to oppose labeling.
Because rBGH is FDA-approved, and because there is no test for rBGH, “If we were to say [a product] is rBGH-free, we’d have a really hard time if someone challenged us,” he says. Therefore, labeling “doesn’t make sense.”
Alcosiba stresses that Big Island milk, at least, is free from hormones. Still, she adds, “rBGH-free products are not a thing that we push our retailers to advertise,” she says.
Hawai`i’s anti-labeling policy came to light in 1996, when ice cream producer Ben & Jerry’s, Stonyfield Farm, Inc., Organic Valley Family of Farms, and natural foods grocery chain Whole Foods Markets filed a lawsuit against the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago, claiming the right to label their products.
After the suit was filed, Marylena Bordson, manager of the Illinois Department of Public Health’s dairy program, told the Vegetarian Times that because there is no test for rBGH, and because large dairy processors of products like ice cream and butter cannot control the source of their milk and cream, labels could give consumers a false sense of security.
“Wisconsin is another state [besides Vermont, whose mandatory rBGH-labeling law was eventually overturned] that allows BGH labeling, but I know that many products labeled ‘BGH-free’ were made from milk treated with BGH, because most farmers use it,” Bordson said. (Actually, it is estimated by the Campaign for Food Safety that only 15 to 30 percent of the nation’s dairy farmers use rBGH.)
In August 1997, an out-of-court settlement was reached, allowing this label to appear on Ben & Jerry’s rBGH-free products: “We oppose recombinant bovine growth hormone. The family farmers who supply our milk and cream pledge not to treat their cows with rBGH. The FDA has said no significant difference has been shown, and no test can now distinguish between milk from rBGH and untreated cows. Not all the suppliers of our other ingredients can promise that the milk they use comes from untreated cows.”
Island Fresh, rBGH Free?
Today, rBGH-free-labeled Altadena yogurt, Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, Brown Cow Farm yogurt, and Organic Valley milk can be found on local supermarket shelves. The labeling of locally made products is a different story.
The Hawai`i state government and dairy industry promotes June as “Dairy Month,” and celebrates with “Island Fresh Milk” art contests, milk displays and interactive games.
Whether “Island Fresh” dairy products would ever be labeled is doubtful, even if the state government supported it.
All milk from local dairies passes through the state’s two processors to be pasteurized, packaged, and marketed. To qualify for the Island Fresh label, at least 90 percent of the milk has to come from Hawai`i dairies. That means “Island Fresh” milk may be local milk blended with up to 10 percent mainland milk, possibly from a dairy where rBGH is used.
Alcosiba says she is certain that there is no blending done on the Big Island, which traditionally produces most or all of its own milk, and, in good years, exports its surplus to other islands. vThe make-up of milk varies from island to island. “Island Fresh” milk from the Big Island may be 100 percent local and rBGH-free, as Alcosiba says, but the same may not be true of O`ahu’s “Island Fresh” milk. Logistically, labeling milk rBGH-free would be a hassle for the processors.
In addition, Meadow Gold, the larger of the state’s two processors, has made its position against labeling quite plain in a January 7, 1999 letter to Environment Hawai`i.
First of all, Meadow Gold does not know if any of its milk comes from rBGH-treated cows, writes George Strayer of Meadow Gold’s Quality Control office in Ogden, Utah. He adds: “It is not logical to label the product as there is no difference in the milk. Labeling implies to the consumer that there is a difference that is not present in the milk. Any claim that a product comes from milk without rBGH use must state that it is technically no different than any other milk. Vitamin fortification is a testable item and can be verified for the consumer by testing with known benefits but a rBGH claim has no test to verify and no consumer verified benefit.”
Attached to Strayer’s letter was the statement of position of the International Dairy Foods Association: “There is no health-based or scientific foundation to support labeling products that use milk from cows treated with supplemental BST, because there is no science to indicate a difference in milk from treated and non-treated cows.”
This stand on labeling comes straight from the FDA. In February 1994, Michael Taylor, the FDA official responsible for the agency’s labeling policy, signed a Federal Register notice warning grocery stores against labeling milk as rBGH-free. (Taylor joined the FDA in 1991 after almost 10 years as a partner in the law firm that Monsanto hired to gain FDA approval of rBGH — the same law firm that, after approval was in hand, represented Monsanto in its suit against milk producers who labeled their products rBGH-free.)
The March 17, 1994 edition of Rachel’s outlines the FDA position: “FDA offers two justifications for preventing labeling: 1) FDA is not requiring anyone to keep track of who is using rBGH and who is not and, without a paper trail, grocery stores might make false claims if they said their milk was rBGH-free. 2) FDA says there is ‘virtually’ no difference between milk from cows injected with rBGH and cows not injected.”
True, there is no test that exists to differentiate between milks. But that doesn’t mean that there is no difference between BGH, a cow’s natural growth hormone, and the genetically engineered rBGH that is marketed by Monsanto
— Teresa Dawson
Volume 9, Number 9 March 1999
Leave a Reply