SUNS 4356 Wednesday 20 January 1999

Ottawa, Jan 17 (IPS/Mark Bourrie) -- Canada's Health Ministry's refusal to approve the sale of the bovine growth hormone, rbST, in Canada is being seen here as a landmark test for biotechnology.

The decision, announced last week, comes just three months before the end of a temporary ban the European Community had imposed on the hormone, which was approved by the United States in 1993, and has been used in Brazil and Mexico since 1988.

[A WTO panel ruled against the EC, but in effect left the way open for the EC to undertake a fresh assessment of scientific data to back its claims. The EC has undertaken a fresh assessment by experts of the hazards of hormone treated beef, before deciding on its course of action.]

Monsanto, the U.S.-based transnational that makes the growth hormone, immediately announced that it would appeal against the Canadian decision.

The artificially-made chemical, also known as BGH, stimulates cows to produce about 15 per cent more milk. It is given to dairy cattle by injection.

Health Canada (the health ministry) announced its decision after more than nine years of study in Canada of the hormone's effects on human and animal safety, and after considering the recent findings of two independent external committees formed last spring to review the adequacy of scientific data and broader issues related to the use of bovine growth hormones in Canada.

The government sought outside advice after its own scientists testified before a Canadian Senate committee that they faced pressure from the chemical industry and politicians to approve rbST.

Toxicologist Shiv Chokra told the committee that, despite the pressure, Health Canada scientists opposed the use of rbST in Canada.

"We are walking into unknown territory when we use it," he said. "We're not treating sick animals or sick people, we're using it for economic benefit. "Hormones are not like any other drug. They are like chemical switches. They trigger another one and another one and another one."

The Health Canada scientists were supported by non-government Public Interest Research Group agencies in several provinces, and by the nationalist Council of Canadians.

The Council, which opposes free trade and the expansion of U.S. influence in Canada and the developing world, supported the scientists when they complained to a civil service board that they were being forced to approve rbST.

The ensuing publicity spurred the government into seeking outside opinions on the hormone.

The two committees' reports were submitted to the government in December and early January and were reviewed by Health Canada scientists, who agreed with the key findings.

"With all of this scientific information available, we saw no reason to delay the decision any longer," said Joel Weiner, acting director for policy, planning and co-ordination at the Canadian government's Health Protection Branch.

Weiner said a panel of veterinary experts found the hormone poses a risk to dairy cattle. "According to the experts that gave us advice, there is a significant increase in the risk of lameness, almost 50 per cent, and mastitis (infection of the udder), roughly 25 per cent, an increased risk in infertility of about 18 per cent, and a marked deterioration in the body condition of dairy cows.

"We put these all together with the information we already had, and we felt we were in a position to not approve rbST," Weiner said.

A second panel, established by Canada's Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, and headed by epidemiologist Dr. Stuart MacLeod, found no significant risk to human safety through ingestion of products from rbST-injected animals.

MacLeod's study group found rbST poses no carcinogenic risk or antibiotic resistance, and only a small potential for allergic reactions.

Kempton Matte, spokesman for Canada's National Dairy Council, says most of his association's members are glad that the use of the growth hormone was not approved. "Consumers say that if this is allowed into our milk, they won't buy dairy products," he said.

Ron Visser, a dairy farmer who lives just outside Ottawa, said he would not have used rbST even if it had been approved. "It just puts more pressure on the cows. We don't need it. It's just a gimmick by the makers to get farmers to believe they can get something for nothing. But everything has a cost," he said.

But Ray Molling, vice-president of Monsanto, said his company has been unfairly treated by the Canadian authorities. "We're going to continue to seek approval of this product," he said. "We believe (because of U.S. studies), there are no issues related to animal safety. "Health Canada has made its decision based on a 400-page report, without us being able to answer back. We've got some serious concerns regarding the analyses and the conclusions of the report," he said.