More shared talent at the FDA & Who stood up to Monsanto and said NO!

Taylor wasn’t the only talent Monsanto and the FDA shared.  Margaret Miller, a researcher at Monsanto, prepared a report requested by the FDA which was to present evidence that the growth hormone Posilac was safe.  Just prior to the submission of the report by Monsanto to the FDA Miller left Monsanto and was hired by the FDA as Deputy Director of the Office of New Animal Drugs where her first task was to approve or disapprove the report she had just put together at Monsanto.  She approved it.  (is that a conflict of interest? dishonest? mind-blowing?  Naw!  It’s all in a day’s work at your MonsanFDAto.)  And while Miller was in this position at the FDA she increased the allowable amount of antibiotics cows can be given by 100 times.  (The correlation between the use of synthetic hormones and antibiotics appeared in my post on Antibiotics in milk and bovine health, part 1, posted July 5^th) .  Other Monsanto transplants into the FDA were Susan Sechen and Nick Weber.
 

So the FDA with no mention of a conflict of interest (the revolving door between Monsanto and the agency) accepted Monsanto’s “evidence” (written at Monsanto, approved at the FDA, all by the same person- the writer and the "approver" were one and the same) as to the safety of its products over the objection of scientists.   I have a problem with that.

Scientists at Health Canada said they had grave misgivings over the safety of Posilac during hearings conducted there.  They stated that they were being pressured and coerced into giving the drug approval.  Dr. Margaret Haydon testified that Monsanto had made an offer of between $1 million and $2 million to Health Canada, which the scientists there interpreted as a bribe. Additionally she noted that notes and files critical of the data provided by Monsanto disappeared from a locked cabinet in her office.  (It could be noted here that Nick Weber, Margaret Miller’s direct underling at the FDA, passed to Monsanto the European Commission’s confidential documents outlining their misgivings about rBGH.  I believe he was terminated.)  Health Canada turned Monsanto away.  They were not persuaded of the safety of the drug, quite the contrary.

Additionally the World Health Organization, the United Nations Food Safety Agency which represents 101 nations worldwide, ruled unanimously in favor of the European moratorium on genetically engineered hormonal milk.  Their Codex Alimentarius, Latin for the Food Book, provides written guidelines and is the internationally recognized collection of food standards, guidelines and codes of practice to protect the health of consumers.  So I guess that leaves the U.S., Mexico and South Africa as the nations who have approved it.  Lonesome ain’t it?

The FDA protects big biotechs- not you!

The FDA and Monsanto have been sharing “talent” for quite a few years.  Folks like to work for Monsanto then they apparently find employment opportunities at the FDA where they can promote Monsanto’s products, then rotate back into the fold, until their special talents are needed again… kinda like a sleeper cell.

Michael Taylor, a lawyer who began his career at the FDA in 1976 personifies this “revolving door” phenomenon better than anyone else.  Following his stint at the FDA Taylor worked for a law firm which represented the Monsanto Corporation.  During his tenure at the law firm from 1984 to 1991 he prepared a memo for Monsanto as to the constitutionality of state’s adoption of laws that would allow milk to be labeled free of synthetic hormones and also whether or not Monsanto could sue states, and dairies as well, that chose to differentiate between the products via labels.

In 1991 the FDA welcomed Taylor back, even created a new special position for him: Deputy Commissioner for Policy.  Overnight he became the point man for fast-tracking Genetically Modified Organisms (genetically engineered food).  He brushed aside the concerns of FDA scientists, eliminated references to the negative effects of GMOS, and by golly, Monsanto got their stuff approved!  (What’s that reference to having friends in high places?)  He wrote the FDA’s synthetic hormone labeling guidelines in 1994- virtually prohibiting dairy corporations from making the distinction between milk with and without the drug.  (Remember that memo he prepared while he was an attorney working for Monsanto?)  He wanted to avoid the stigmatization of the product, or more correctly stated, wanted to keep the consumer in the dark as to what he/she was buying.  That same year it was publicized that Taylor had worked for the Monsanto Corporation as a lawyer for seven years.  Oh, not to worry!  The FDA doesn’t care and nobody much will tell the American public.  From 1994 – 1996 he worked at the USDA in food safety(?) and inspection services.  He then rotated back into the Monsanto Corporation as the Vice President for Public Policy and lobbyist.  Well, he’s gone, right?  No!  He’s baaaa-aaack!  President Obama appointed Taylor as “Advisor to the FDA Commissioner as a food safety expert.”  Wait, he’s a lawyer.  A lawyer has a background in law, not science, not public health, not …. Oh never mind!  His new duties include planning implementation of “new food safety legislation”.   Hey, Mr. Taylor, what about antibiotics in our milk, in our meat, cancer causing hormones in our food?  Legislation, yes- safety, not so much.  Tomorrow more shared talent at the FDA and who ultimately stood up to Monsanto.

Fox TV and synthetic hormonal milk, part 1

The investigative team of Jane Akre and Steve Wilson had been hired expressly by the television station WTVT in Tampa to do just that…. conduct investigative reporting.  In fact Wilson had received 4 Emmies for his reporting, and Akre had received an Associated Press award for her work.  Shortly after the husband and wife team was hired on, the station was sold to new owners- Fox TV, owned by Rupert Murdoch, and thus begins our story.  Akre and Wilson had been writing an in-depth report on Florida’s dairy industry and were turning up all sorts of negative information relating to the use of rBGH in milk cows and that gave them great concern.  They had conducted lots of interviews, had shot a lot of footage, and had done plenty of investigative digging into the subject.  This was going to be a BIG story.  It was scheduled to air in four parts beginning on February 24, 1997, and in anticipation of its airing during that sweeps week Fox was paying for ads on radio as well to stimulate public interest.  Just before it was to be aired the Fox News Chairman received what could be viewed as a threatening letter from a powerful New York attorney representing Monsanto.  “There is a lot at stake in what is going on in Florida, not only for Monsanto but also for Fox News and its owner,” concluded the New York attorney John J. Walsh in that letter.  It was received virtually on the eve of the scheduled broadcast of the first segment of the report.  Walsh asked for a week for Monsanto to prepare material to defend itself from what they perceived as an attack on their product, Posilac. The investigative series was postponed while attorneys and reporters poured over the material but found no inaccuracies.  The reporters offered to interview a rep of Monsanto to explain their side of the story.  Walsh then ridiculed that idea.  The series was postponed again.  Over a period of months Fox tried all sorts of means to get Akre and Wilson to drop the story entirely or to change it to the extent that it would have ultimately been completely false.   How did it turn out?  Did the truth win out?  Check it out tomorrow.

Holy Cow! Hormones in our milk! Part 2

By the manufacturer's own admission (information printed on the product insert), use of Posilac results in increased risk for cows to develop clinical mastitis (or visibly abnormal milk); and increased risk of sub-clinical (invisibly abnormal milk).  It should be noted here that there are a number of other conditions related to Posilac listed on the label but since those are related to bovine health and not human I haven’t included them here.  Now mind you these risks-- they’re just what Monsanto ‘fesses up to- it’s not everything we need to worry about.  Supposedly our bodies do not have receptors for bovine hormones. (or just no receptors for non-synthetic ones?)  How does one then explain away fairly recent events in China?  In 2010 there was a furor because some baby girls fed on infant formula were developing enlarged breast tissue.  Worse yet in the 1980s in Puerto Rico there were multiple cases of precocious puberty in little girls.  Baby girls under one year old, not yet even walking, were developing enlarged breast tissue.  Girls as young as three developed pubic hair and had vaginal bleeding, and four year-old girls had fully developed breasts.  Boys were also affected and some had to resort to surgery for cosmetic reasons.  The situation was traced to the use of hormones in dairy cows.  Proof?  When the children were taken off dairy milk the symptoms regressed in most cases.  Check it out here. So these events are not related to synthetic hormones?  What then is the explanation?  It hasn’t happened here… yet, and hopefully it won't!  Not to worry then???  When the greater part of the developed world (Canada, the European Union, Japan, Australia and New Zealand) refuses to use rBGH in milk production, and refuses to buy our dairy products (and meat) because they say not enough research has been done, then I'd say they realize something big agribusiness and our FDA doesn't want us to know.  Land of the Free?  When it comes to our food supply, I'm not so sure.    

Holy Cow! Hormones in our milk! Part 1

We’ve heard about hormones in our milk supply.  Aren’t hormones natural? What’s the big deal?  Yes, hormones are naturally found in milk.  The naturally occurring hormone found in cow’s milk is BGH (bovine growth hormone).  The body of the cow naturally produces it so that her calf will grow, therefore it is secreted into her milk. Supposedly this is not a problem for people because it is a bovine hormone to which our bodies do not react.  The hormone that scientists, doctors and concerned consumers are troubled by is rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone) which is a synthetic form of the growth hormone injected into cows to increase growth rates and milk production.  Other names for this synthetic hormone include rBST (bovine somatotropin) and Posilac, Monsanto's brandname for the synthetic stuff.  The motivation to use it?  Increased profits- a cow can produce from 10 to 25% more milk when injected with rBGH.  I have nothing against someone wanting to increase their profits, but it poses a big problem for me when it comes at the expense of public health.  Initially four companies made the synthetic hormone, today the field is vacated but for Elanco Animal Health, owned by Eli Lilly.  Monsanto sold Posilac to Lilly in August of 2008 for $300 million saying it wanted to devote more of its resources to development of its genetically engineered seed (to the great disadvantage of all of us.)  Don’t worry about Monsanto though- Lilly will give them a cut of further action and also will assume payment of royalties to the University of California… hmmm?   So if BGH doesn’t pose a risk to our health, why would rBGH?  Because it is not the same as the naturally occurring hormone!  It is a manufactured substance made in a laboratory, injected into animals, and no real studies have been done on its long-term effects on people.   Part 2 will appear tomorrow.

Some final thoughts on Soy

Soy- the Japanese thrive on their soy.  On the whole they appear a pretty healthy lot.  I've learned they process their soy in a beneficial way, a process they have been using for thousands of years.  I've learned that the way we process ours is completely different with the net effect that it is NOT good for our health. Then genetically modified soy comes upon the scene and changes the picture even more.  GM soy hasn't been adequately tested. The FDA has approved it for consumption seemingly without much information.  While they hold up the dissemination of new drugs for long periods of time while lengthy testing is done (and these drugs will be taken by far fewer people than the population that will ingest soy in its so many, many forms), genetically modified foods are given a comparatively quick greenlight.  When the scientific community is exhorting caution and saying that more studies are needed, Monsanto effectively says "prove it's not good for you," but doesn't make its seed available for testing.  The Biotech industry can destroy the career of scientists whose findings displease them, like Dr. Arpad Pusztai, who stated on British TV that he wouldn't eat genetically modified foods.  You can check it out at  http://www.psrast.org/pusztai.htm .  You make up your mind on whether you want to eat these foods.  I've already made up mine.