Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Consumer Law Blogs -> 43(B)log

Consumer Law

: 43(B)log

Reading list: rBST

By Rebecca Tushnet

Christina Cusimano, RBST, It Does a Body Good?: RBST Labeling and the Federal Denial of Consumers? Right To Know, 48 Santa Clara L. Rev. 1095 (2008) (unavailable free online: Eric Goldman, what is up with that?)

The current labeling structure of milk and milk products derived from rBST treated cows is inadequate and misleading. The FDA has ignored evidence of health risks associated with the use of this synthetic growth hormone and consumers are unknowingly forced to do the same. For a decade, mandatory labeling has been prohibited because Monsanto's scientific reports, which did not include long-term testing, indicated no substantial difference between milk from treated and untreated cows. Like many FDA approved drugs, studies show serious risks associated with the use of rBST. Short of recalling the drug altogether, the Federal Government should amend the FDCA to mandate labeling of rBST milk, to protect the health and safety of our nation.

The note, because it takes the position that there are in fact human safety issues with rBST, doesn't spend much time on the argument that truthfully informing consumers about the use of rBST will cause them to draw mistaken conclusions about the harms of rBST, which are more persuasively established with respect to cows than to humans.

Full post as published by 43(B)log on August 18, 2008 (boomark / email).