What is rbst in milk

Verified by: Organic certification is provided by a number of approved certifying agencies. What It Means: This label suggests that the food has no additives or synthetic substances, but remains pretty vague.

Most dairy products are pasteurized, or heated to kill off microorganisms, and many have been mechanically separated and homogenized to prevent them from separating. What other labels should we look at? What food claims can we decode? Click here to tell us what to look at next. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency CFIA is responsible for any labelling that does not relate to food safety; that is, voluntary labelling and labelling designed to protect consumers against fraud.

Thus, the CFIA ensures that Canadian and imported dairy products comply with the regulations governing quality and labelling. I t is very likely that products such as cheese and yogurt made from milk produced by rbST-treated cows have been imported into Canada.

In that country, milk from treated cows is considered to be as safe as milk from untreated cows and there is no labelling requirement concerning rbST on dairy products. Furthermore, according to the CFIA, there is no means of identifying these products. H owever, because dairy products are identified by their country of origin, the consumer can decide whether to purchase products from countries that have already approved rbST.

On the other hand, products in which milk is only one ingredient among many ice cream, for example are classified as Canadian products, no matter where their raw materials may have originated. I f rbST is approved for use in Canada, the issue of a notice of compliance would imply that the product had been found not to pose any particular threat to human health. When a product does not pose a threat, Health Canada does not require any mandatory labelling, but voluntary labelling is permitted if the information is verifiable.

I n October , Health Canada issued the first Experimental Studies Certificate for an rbST-based product, concluding that the milk of animals given the product did not present risks to human health. P rovel, a division of Eli Lilly Canada Inc. I n , Monsanto Canada made an application for approval of its rbST-based product sometribove, marketed under the name "Nutrilac". The Committee made seven recommendations including the imposition of a one-year moratorium for conducting a detailed review of the impact of rbST and creation of a task force to carry out that review.

A one-year moratorium on the sale of rbST was put in place in July This moratorium is still in effect. I n May , an article in the Globe and Mail reported that some Health Canada scientists had questioned the process for assessing the impact of rbST on human health. I n July , the Dairy Farmers of Canada asked that the Auditor General to review the rbST approval process, that the Codex alimentarius Commission 1 express an opinion on whether the hormone is harmless, and that Health Canada inform the public of the process for assessing the approach used in deciding whether to grant approval.

I n July , the Netherlands proposed a motion to the Codex alimentarius requesting that establishment of a maximum limit for residues be delayed while data relating to human health were reassessed by the Joint FAO-WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives and the application of "legitimate factors other than the scientific analysis" was reviewed.

Canada voted against the motion. I n January , Health Canada set up an internal review team made up of four evaluators, including two scientists who had worked at the office responsible for evaluating an rbST-based product and had challenged the evaluation process in the press.

The team produced two reports: the first, dated 21 April , on the analysis of shortcomings in the evaluation process, is unanimous; the second, dated June 10, , is signed by the two Health Canada evaluators who did not work for the office responsible for evaluating the rbST-based product.

Both reports state that the rbST evaluation process had methodological and scientific shortcomings. These hearings indicated that the rbST evaluation process had not always been correctly followed. Witnesses told the Committee of management problems at Health Canada, claiming that there had been pressure, coercion, theft of documents on rbST, and a rule of silence with respect to rbST. M eanwhile, two expert panels, one working under the auspices of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and a second working under the auspices of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, evaluated whether rbST was harmful to human and animal health respectively.

Both panels submitted their reports in January A s long as rbST has not received a notice of compliance, it cannot be sold legally in Canada. Since it was established in , one of its goals has been to define food standards and codes governing hygiene and technology in light of the safety of food additives and contaminants it has evaluated more than additives and determined more than 3, maximum levels of pesticide residues.

S ales of recombinant bovine somatotropin rbST have been permitted in the United States since February American law does not require the milk from rbST-treated cows to be labelled as such, although it is possible to label milk as being rbST-free. Where this is done, however, it must also be indicated that the Food and Drug Administration has determined that there is no significant difference between the milk from cows treated with rbST and milk from cows that have not been so treated.

A merican consumer reaction has been studied by Georges Brinkman, an economist at the University of Guelph. I n the year following the introduction of rbST, milk consumption remained steady. It would appear that this trend can be explained primarily by the fact that the product available did not make distinctions: in the United States, milk is not identified as coming or not coming from cows treated with rbST. Milk may be labelled as rbST-free, provided that it is also specified that there is no significant difference in the milk of cows that have been treated with rbST and cows that have not.

During the period from January to August , milk consumption even increased by 0. In Wisconsin and Vermont, however, buying habits are different. In Wisconsin, milk identified as being rbST-free was the choice of most consumers in ; however, in , most milk sold for consumption in that state was unlabelled and could have come from cows treated with the hormone.

In Vermont, consumer milk from companies known to produce rbST-free milk represented most of the sales in In these two States, a double system offering both and undifferentiated milk seems to have been necessary to maintain sales. However, opposition to rbST apparently resulted in part from concerns about a threat to the rural way of life and came as much from producers as consumers. A cross the country, studies conducted in showed that rbST was no longer of concern to American consumers.

Milk consumption in the United States seems to vary more according to price increases, advertising and fat content than to the use of this hormone. Twice it failed to reach a consensus regarding maximum residue limits MRL for products from rbST supplemented animals. During its 22nd session, the commission decided to suspend the consideration of the adoption of MRL for bovine somatotropin.

In , the Council of the European Union a legislative body decided to definitely ban the possible use of bovine somatotropin rbST in the EU. In support of its ban, it invoked animal welfare reasons.

Prior to that decision, the European legislators had invoked different reasons, especially the impact on the European dairy policy, with varying success. In other instances, European Courts found concerns to be unfounded. Despite the scientific finding of safety to human and public health, which should have led to the establishment of a MRL, the EU legislative body decided to ban rbST. These reviews and the most recent year they convened are listed below.

Several of these reports document adverse effects on cows, including higher rates of mastitis, foot problems, and injection site reactions. Although the use of rBGH is still approved in the United States, demand for the product has decreased in recent years. Many large grocery store chains no longer carry milk from cows treated with rBGH.

The available evidence shows that the use of rBGH can cause adverse health effects in cows. The evidence for potential harm to humans 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.