How Low Can Monsanto Go?

How Low Can Monsanto Go?
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

The consumers have spoken, and the message to Monsanto is loud and clear: we don't want yer stinkin' recombinant bovine growth hormone. Sales of organic dairy products have skyrocketed as people steer clear of rbST for fear that it's harmful to consumers and cows alike.

If you're not up to speed on the controversy, watch the video Stephen Colbert aired last week from "the Prescott Group, America's leading agri-pharma-petro-chemico -militaria-industrial corporation." A public service announcement disguised as a parody of corporate propaganda, it surely curdled rBST-tainted milk sales even further.

Given the choice, we'd prefer not to be guinea pigs for a hormone whose side effects on humans are unknown. What we do know about rbST is that the cows injected with it suffer from painful udder infections which then require massive doses of antibiotics.

So Monsanto is fighting back the only way it can: by attempting to deny us that choice. The multinational biotech behemoth has filed a complaint with the FDA which claims that "rBGH-free" labels on dairy products "deceptively imply negative health effects from rBGH."

It may well be that rBGH is, in fact, perfectly safe for humans. But it's definitely bad for bovines. "Dairy cows are already bred for high milking output, and the artificial boost from rBGH takes a toll on their bodies," notes Christopher Wanjek, who covers the "Bad Medicine" beat for LiveScience. "For animal welfare reasons alone, consumers have the right to know how their milk is produced."

Monsanto has been waging a pr battle on behalf of rBGH ever since the FDA approved its use back in 1993. When Fox News assigned two investigative reporters to do a four part series on rBGH for a Florida affiliate in 1996, Monsanto provided Fox executives with talking points that totally contradicted the reporters' own research.

The reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, were ordered by Fox executives to air Monsanto's false claims. They refused, and threatened to report Fox to the FCC. Fox responded by firing them. Akre and Wilson sued.

A Florida jury found Fox guilty of wrongful dismissal under Florida's whistle blower protection laws, but Fox appealed, and in February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals ruled in Fox's favor. Why? Because it turns out that there's no law against a news media outlet deliberately distorting or falsifying news. In other words, no laws were broken, and therefore, the reporters were not, technically, whistle blowers.

For the record, Fox News never denied that it pressured its reporters to broadcast a false story. Fox's entire defense rested on the premise that the First Amendment grants broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports.

I guess it shouldn't be a shock that companies like Monsanto and Fox are in cahoots, conspiring to peddle their tainted products. Birds of a feather. May an avian flu-like pox plague both their houses, and the FDA's, too, if they cave in to this agribiz avarice.

Go To Homepage

Popular in the Community