MONSANTO’s Wonderful List of Agricultural PRODUCTS

Everything You Never Wanted to Know About
Monsanto’s Modus Operandi (M.O.)


Monsanto Roundup


If You Think Monsanto’s Roundup is a Safer Pesticide, Please read the articles and papers on this page !
Because all herbicides are pesticides, Roundup is a pesticide as defined by the EPA.

Monsanto bribes, cheats, lies, steals, kills, . . .

If you’re still not convinced that Roundup is a highly toxic and persistent pesticide, read on, while at the same time remembering the other contributions that Monsanto has made to society such as:

Saccharin, Astroturf, agent orange, dioxin, sulphuric acid, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), plastics and synthetic fabrics, research on uranium for the Manhattan Project that led to the construction of nuclear bombs, styrene monomer, an endless line of pesticides and herbicides (Roundup), rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone that makes cows ill), genetically engineered crops (corn, potatoes, tomatoes, soy beans, cotton), and it’s most significant product to date; Lies, Factual Distortions and Omissions.  Here’s one of the distortions that Monsanto had on its website a while back. “Sustainability – the idea that the resources and people of this world are finite. That for any business decision we make, we must consider the effect it will have on us and our children. That the products we make must not use up all of a natural resource, or even worse, contaminate what is left behind.”

Take a look at what Monsanto is doing to Canadian canola farmer Percy Schmeiser. And he’s far from being the sole recipient of Monsanto’s vengeful wrath. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of farmers around the world are being sued after Monsanto’s police “find” their patented crops on the farmers’ lands without paying for use of the technology.  Also see theMonsanto Technology Agreement, in which farmers must sign away all rights in order to sow Monsanto seed


Monsanto Viciously Threatens, Bullies and Ruins Farmers

Genetic Engineering and Productivity


Still More…



GMOS are  Dynamite

Grocery store CEOs: Refuse Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn!

Right now, Monsanto, the corporation responsible for producing roughly 90% of genetically modified seeds around the globe, is working to bring their new, GMO sweet corn to a grocery store aisle or farmer’s market near you.1

Unlike Monsanto’s other GMO crops — which are primarily fed to animals — this sweet corn is intended for direct human consumption.

This is the first time Monsanto has engineered a vegetable that could be served straight to your dinner table. It’s health impacts on humans are largely unknown – but if this unlabeled, and potentially dangerous products succeeds, Monsanto is sure to bring us even more.

As an activist and consumer, you are in a powerful position to pressure leading U.S. grocery stores to reject Monsanto’s new GMO corn.

Tell U.S. food companies: Americans don’t want Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn in our grocery stores!

Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn is engineered to tolerate the herbicide Roundup, and to produce the insect-killing toxin Bt.

These modifications have been shown to lead to some serious health problems in animals who eat them.

A study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences found that Monsanto’s GMO corn led to organ failure in mammals.2 This GMO corn has also recently been linked to a new pathogen causing crop failure and a sharp spike in livestock infertility – as high as 20%. But despite the warnings of one of the nation’s leading plant pathologists that more study was needed to determine potential health impacts on humans, the USDA rapidly approved this corn for us to eat.3

Even worse, lobbyists for Monsanto and others in the chemical and agribusiness industry have successfully fought tooth and nail to keep GMO products totally unlabeled. So shockingly, consumers are being denied the right to know if they’re purchasing Monsanto’s new genetically modified sweet corn.

Campaign for Healthier Eating in America

Tell U.S. grocery stores: Americans don’t want Monsanto’s GMO sweet corn!

Some of Monsanto’s GMO corn is already in human food – used to make additives in processed food products – and even in small quantities it’s having scary effects.

This past spring a Canadian study found that the GMO toxin inserted in Bt corn was found in the bloodstreams of 93 percent of pregnant women4 – just from its presence in processed grains and highly processed food products.

This finding challenges the industry’s long-held claim that Bt poses no threat to humans because it breaks down quickly in the gut. Rather, Bt appears to persist in the body, and potential lasting impacts merit a great deal more study.

But instead of more study, grocery stores could be on the verge of delivering up GMO corn in much higher doses and without processing – and we wouldn’t even know what we were eating.

We must raise our voice as consumers and urge grocery stores to reject Monsanto’s potentially dangerous new product, and stop this dangerous trend of Monsanto-made, straight to table products.

1 Monsanto Plans To Sell Sweet Corn In Your Local Supermarket August 8, 2011.
2 Monsanto’s GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals March 18, 2011.
3 Dr. Huber’s Warning: How GMOs Are Linked to Disease and Infertility May 4, 2011.
4 GM Food Toxins Found In The Blood of 93% of Unborn Babies May 20, 2011.

Genetically modified foods…
Are they safe?

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) doesn’t think so. The Academy reported that “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. The AAEM asked physicians to advise patients to avoid GM foods.

Before the FDA decided to allow GMOs into food without labeling, FDA scientists had repeatedly warned that GM foods can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged long-term safety studies, but were ignored.

gmo danger2

Since then, findings include:
  • Thousands of sheep, buffalo, and goats in India died after grazing on Bt cotton plants
  • Mice eating GM corn for the long term had fewer, and smaller, babies
  • More than half the babies of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks, and were smaller
  • Testicle cells of mice and rats on a GM soy change significantly
  • By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies
  • Rodents fed GM corn and soy showed immune system responses and signs of toxicity
  • Cooked GM soy contains as much as 7-times the amount of a known soy allergen
  • Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced
  • The stomach lining of rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive cell growth, a condition that may lead to cancer.
  • Studies showed organ lesions, altered liver and pancreas cells, changed enzyme levels, etc.

Unlike safety evaluations for drugs, there are no human clinical trials of GM foods. The only published human feeding experiment revealed that the genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. This means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have their GM proteins produced continuously inside us. This could mean:

  • If the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM crops were to transfer, it could create super diseases, resistant to antibiotics
  • If the gene that creates Bt-toxin in GM corn were to transfer, it might turn our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories.

Although no studies have evaluated if antibiotic or Bt-toxin genes transfer, that is one of the key problems. The safety assessments are too superficial to even identify most of the potential dangers from GMOs. See our Health Risks brochure and State of the Sciencereport for more details and citations.

Recent health studies provide growing evidence of harm from GMOs:

Study Proves Three Monsanto Corn Varieties’ Noxiousness to the Organism

Friday 11 December 2009

by: Le Monde with AFP   |  Le Monde

Study Proves Three Monsanto Corn Varieties' Noxiousness to the Organism
GMO cornfields in Canada. A new European study “clearly reveals … new side effects linked with GM maize consumption” affected the liver and kidneys, but also other organs for three Monsanto GMO corn varieties. (Photo:DawnOne)

A study published in theInternational Journal of Biological Sciences demonstrates the toxicity of three genetically modified corn varieties from the American seed company Monsanto, the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (Criigen, based in Caen), which participated in that study, announced Friday, December 11.

“For the first time in the world, we’ve proven that GMO are neither sufficiently healthy nor proper to be commercialized. […] Each time, for all three GMOs, the kidneys and liver, which are the main organs that react to a chemical food poisoning, had problems,” indicated Gilles-Eric Séralini, an expert member of the Commission for Biotechnology Reevaluation, created by the EU in 2008.

Caen and Rouen University researchers, as well as Criigen researchers, based their analyses on the data supplied by Monsanto to health authorities to obtain the green light for commercialization, but they draw different conclusions after new statistical calculations. According to Professor Séralini, the health authorities based themselves on a reading of the conclusions Monsanto has presented and not on conclusions drawn from the totality of the data. The researchers were able to obtain complete documentation following a legal decision.

“Monsanto’s tests, effected over 90 days, are obviously not of sufficient duration to be able to say whether chronic illnesses are caused. That’s why we ask for tests over a period of at least two years,” explained one researcher. Consequently, the scientists demand a “firm prohibition” on the importation and cultivation of these GMOs.
These three GMOs (MON810, MON863 and NK603) “are approved for human and animal consumption in the EU and especially the United States,” notes Professor Séralini. “MON810 is the only one of the three grown in certain EU countries (especially Spain); the others are imported,” he adds. A meeting of EU ministers over MON810 and NK603 is scheduled Monday

Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility, Infant Mortality

“This study was just routine,” said Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov, in what could end up as the understatement of this century. Surov and his colleagues set out to discover if Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) soy, grown on 91% of US soybean fields, leads to problems in growth or reproduction. What he discovered may uproot a multi-billion dollar industry.

After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups.

And if this isn’t shocking enough, some in the third generation even had hair growing inside their mouths—a phenomenon rarely seen, but apparently more prevalent among hamsters eating GM soy.

The study, jointly conducted by Surov’s Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security, is expected to be published in three months (July 2010)—so the technical details will have to wait. But Surov sketched out the basic set up for me in an email.

He used Campbell hamsters, with a fast reproduction rate, divided into 4 groups. All were fed a normal diet, but one was without any soy, another had non-GM soy, a third used GM soy, and a fourth contained higher amounts of GM soy. They used 5 pairs of hamsters per group, each of which produced 7-8 litters, totally 140 animals.

Surov told The Voice of Russia,

“Originally, everything went smoothly. However, we noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before. These pairs’ growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly.”

He selected new pairs from each group, which generated another 39 litters. There were 52 pups born to the control group and 78 to the non-GM soy group. In the GM soy group, however, only 40 pups were born. And of these, 25% died. This was a fivefold higher death rate than the 5% seen among the controls. Of the hamsters that ate high GM soy content, only a single female hamster gave birth. She had 16 pups; about 20% died.

Surov said “The low numbers in F2 [third generation] showed that many animals were sterile.”

The published paper will also include measurements of organ size for the third generation animals, including testes, spleen, uterus, etc. And if the team can raise sufficient funds, they will also analyze hormone levels in collected blood samples.

Hair Growing in the Mouth

Earlier this year, Surov co-authored a paper in Doklady Biological Sciences showing that in rare instances, hair grows inside recessed pouches in the mouths of hamsters.

“Some of these pouches contained single hairs; others, thick bundles of colorless or pigmented hairs reaching as high as the chewing surface of the teeth. Sometimes, the tooth row was surrounded with a regular brush of hair bundles on both sides. The hairs grew vertically and had sharp ends, often covered with lumps of a mucous.”

Rat Study Oral Hair

“(a) The external appearance of the oral cavity. Gingival pouches (GP) with thick bundles of hair growing from their mucous lining are clearly seen. (b) Perforated bone tissue of the teeth of an adult Ph. campbelli. Numerous hollows are seen. A, hair.”

From A. S. Baranov, O. F. Chernova, N. Yu. Feoktistova, and A. V. Surov, “A New Example of Ectopia: Oral Hair in Some Rodent Species,” Doklady Biological Sciences, 2010, Vol. 431, pp. 117–120, Original Russian Text © A.S. Baranov, O.F. Chernova, N.Yu. Feoktistova, A.V. Surov, 2010, published in Doklady Akademii Nauk, 2010, Vol. 431, No. 4, pp. 559–562.

At the conclusion of the study, the authors surmise that such an astounding defect may be due to the diet of hamsters raised in the laboratory. They write, “This pathology may be exacerbated by elements of the food that are absent in natural food, such as genetically modified (GM) ingredients (GM soybean or maize meal) or contaminants (pesticides, mycotoxins, heavy metals, etc.).” Indeed, the number of hairy mouthed hamsters was much higher among the third generation of GM soy fed animals than anywhere Surov had seen before.

Preliminary, But Ominous

Surov warns against jumping to early conclusions. He said, “It is quite possible that the GMO does not cause these effects by itself.” Surov wants to make the analysis of the feed components a priority, to discover just what is causing the effect and how.

In addition to the GMOs, it could be contaminants, he said, or higher herbicide residues, such as Roundup. There is in fact much higher levels of Roundup on these beans; they’re called “Roundup Ready.” Bacterial genes are forced into their DNA so that the plants can tolerate Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. Therefore, GM soy always carries the double threat of higher herbicide content, couple with any side effects of genetic engineering.

Years of Reproductive Disorders from GMO-Feed

Rats photo #1

Surov’s hamsters are just the latest animals to suffer from reproductive disorders after consuming GMOs. In 2005, Irina Ermakova, also with the Russian National Academy of Sciences, reported that more than half the babies from mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks. This was also five times higher than the 10% death rate of the non-GMO soy group. The babies in the GM group were also smaller (see photo) and could not reproduce.

In a telling coincidence, after Ermakova’s feeding trials, her laboratory started feeding all the rats in the facility a commercial rat chow using GM soy. Within two months, the infant mortality facility-wide reached 55%.

When Ermakova fed male rats GM soy, their testicles changed from the normal pink to dark blue!

Italian scientists similarly found changes in mice testes (PDF), including damaged young sperm cells. Furthermore, the DNA of embryos from parent mice fed GM soy functioned differently.

An Austrian government study published in November 2008 showed that the more GM corn was fed to mice, the fewer the babies they had (PDF), and the smaller the babies were.

Central Iowa Farmer Jerry Rosman also had trouble with pigs and cows becoming sterile. Some of his pigs even had false pregnancies or gave birth to bags of water. After months of investigations and testing, he finally traced the problem to GM corn feed. Every time a newspaper, magazine, or TV show reported Jerry’s problems, he would receive calls from more farmers complaining of livestock sterility on their farm, linked to GM corn.

Researchers at Baylor College of Medicine accidentally discovered that rats raised on corncob bedding “neither breed nor exhibit reproductive behavior.” Tests on the corn material revealed two compounds that stopped the sexual cycle in females “at concentrations approximately two-hundredfold lower than classical phytoestrogens.” One compound also curtailed male sexual behavior and both substances contributed to the growth of breast and prostate cancer cell cultures. Researchers found that theamount of the substances varied with GM corn varieties. The crushed corncob used at Baylor was likely shipped from central Iowa, near the farm of Jerry Rosman and others complaining of sterile livestock.

In Haryana, India, a team of investigating veterinarians report that buffalo consuming GM cottonseed suffer from infertility, as well as frequent abortions, premature deliveries, and prolapsed uteruses. Many adult and young buffalo have also died mysteriously.

Denial, Attack and Canceled Follow-up

Scientists who discover adverse findings from GMOs are regularly attacked, ridiculed, denied funding, and even fired. When Ermakova reported the high infant mortality among GM soy fed offspring, for example, she appealed to the scientific community to repeat and verify her preliminary results. She also sought additional funds to analyze preserved organs. Instead, she was attacked and vilified. Samples were stolen from her lab, papers were burnt on her desk, and she said that her boss, under pressure from his boss, told her to stop doing any more GMO research. No one has yet repeated Ermakova’s simple, inexpensive studies.

In an attempt to offer her sympathy, one of her colleagues suggested that maybe the GM soy will solve the over population problem!

Surov reports that so far, he has not been under any pressure.

Opting Out of the Massive GMO Feeding Experiment

Without detailed tests, no one can pinpoint exactly what is causing the reproductive travesties in Russian hamsters and rats, Italian and Austrian mice, and livestock in India and America. And we can only speculate about the relationship between the introduction of genetically modified foods in 1996, and the corresponding upsurge in low birth weight babies, infertility, and other problems among the US population. But many scientists, physicians, and concerned citizens don’t think that the public should remain the lab animals for the biotech industry’s massive uncontrolled experiment.

Alexey Surov says, “We have no right to use GMOs until we understand the possible adverse effects, not only to ourselves but to future generations as well. We definitely need fully detailed studies to clarify this. Any type of contamination has to be tested before we consume it, and GMO is just one of them.”

Herbicide Used in Argentina Could Cause Birth Defects
The herbicide used on genetically modified soy – Argentina’s main crop – causes brain, intestinal and heart defects in fetuses, according to the results of a scientific investigation.

BUENOS AIRES – The herbicide used on genetically modified soy – Argentina’s main crop – could cause brain, intestinal and heart defects in fetuses, according to the results of a scientific investigation released Monday.
Although the study “used amphibian embryos,” the results “are completely comparable to what would happen in the development of a human embryo,” embryology professor Andres Carrasco, one of the study’s authors, told Efe.
“The noteworthy thing is that there are no studies of embryos on the world level and none where glyphosate is injected into embryos,” said the researcher with the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research and director of the Molecular Embryology Laboratory.
The doses of herbicide used in the study “were much lower than the levels used in the fumigations,” and so the situation “is much more serious” that the study suggests because “glyphosate does not degrade,” Carrasco warned.
In Argentina, farmers each year use between 180 and 200 million liters of glyphosate, which was developed by the multinational Monsanto and sold in the United States under the brand name Roundup.
Carrasco said that the research found that “pure glyphosate, in doses lower than those used in fumigation, causes defects … (and) could be interfering in some normal embryonic development mechanism having to do with the way in which cells divide and die.”
“The companies say that drinking a glass of glyphosate is healthier than drinking a glass of milk, but the fact is that they’ve used us as guinea pigs,” he said.
He gave as an example what occurred in Ituzaingo, a district where 5,000 people live on the outskirts of the central Argentine city of Cordoba, where over the past eight years about 300 cases of cancer associated with fumigations with pesticides have turned up.
“In communities like Ituzaingo it’s already too late, but we have to have a preventive system, to demand that the companies give us security frameworks and, above all, to have very strict regulations for fumigation, which nobody is adhering to out of ignorance or greed,” he said.
The researcher also said that, apart from the research he carried out, “there has to be a serious study” on the effects of glyphosate on human beings, adding that “the state has all the mechanisms for that.”
In the face of the volley of judicial complaints related to the disproportionate use of agrochemicals in the cultivation of GM soy, last February the Health Ministry created a group to investigate the problem in four Argentine provinces.
Argentina is the world’s third-largest exporter of soy.




rBGH (Posilac) — Breast Cancer and Prostate Cancer

Return to
Monsanto Unethical Investment Page / Ethical Investing Home Page

Recent research is beginning to confirm that dairy foods produced with Monsanto’s genetically-engineered Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) may speed the growth of human breast and prostate cancers. Because of the extreme dangers from regular ingestion of such dairy foods, the Cancer Prevention Coaltion and a research scientist issued a press release earlier this year detailing the risks. The dangers should have been obvious many years ago when much of this information was presented to Monsanto. Instead, they chose to ignore it and force their rBGH-dairy on the general population — unlabelled.
Dairy products from cows injected with Monsanto’s rBGH have three frightening differences:

  1. Large Increases in the Hormone IGF-1
    rBGH-dairy induces a 70% to 1000% increase in the levels of the hormone, IGF-1. IGF-1 in dairy foods is not destroyed by digestion because it is protected by casein and by dairy’s buffering effect. At least some of this IGF-1 is absorbed into the body. IGF-1 stimulates the proliferation of cancer cells. Two recent studies showed that increased levels of IGF-1 in humans predict increased rates in breast cancer and prostate cancer.

    “A recent article (Cancer Research, 55:2463-2469, June 1995) from Renato Baserga’s laboratory in Philadelphia has shown clearly that IGF-1 is required for the establishment and maintenance of tumors. The mechanism for this is that IGF-1 protects the cells from apoptosis (programmed cell death). IGF accelerates tumor growth and appears to affect the aggressiveness of tumors. As the IGF-1 level is decreased, cell death can take place. We are talking about IGF-1 levels of 10 nanogram per m1, i.e., 0.00001 milligram per ml.”
    “My concern is that increases in such minute levels could readily enter the blood stream of individuals drinking milk from BST [rBGH] treated cows. As an individual ages, indolent tumor cells do appear in various organs (breast, ovary, prostate, etc..) which grow slowly with the result that clinical cancer is not manifested until old age, or, in many cases, after the individual would have died of other causes. Stimulation of these cells by elevated levels of IGF-1 would result in clinical cancer in a decade or two or even less. Furthermore, these levels of IGF-1 could stimulate the progression and aggressiveness of childhood leukemias to a point that chemotherapy could not be effective, much less curative.”
    “The widespread consumption of BST [rBGH] supplemented milk is therefore an experiment on an unsuspecting population that could have horrendous consequences and overwhelm the health care system. The experiment would take one to three decades when it would be difficult to dismantle a well-entrenched BST [rBGH] industry, and still have one to three decades’ worth of individuals in the pipeline. I can conceive of no animal experiments to test this and to provide hard data to predict the magnitude and time frame for this effect. The risk to benefit ratio of this experiment is clearly not in favor of the consumer.”
    [George L. Tritsch, Cancer Research Scientist (Retired), August 7, 1995]

    Despite the overwhelming danger for future generations, Monsanto has pushed ahead and forced rBGH-dairy on the unsuspecting public. Sometimes, they put out scientifically inaccurate information to allay fears. Some examples may include:
    • “There is more IGF-1 in saliva.” But it is destroyed by digestion because it is not protected as is IGF-1 in dairy foods.
    • “A significant amount of IGF-1 is not absorbed.” As noted in the quote above, it only takes an extremely small level to cause problems.
    • “There is more IGF-1 in breast milk.” Autopsy studies have shown that 39% of women between 40 and 50 have clinically insignificant, undetectable breast cancer (while only ~1% are diagnosed with cancer). It normally takes so many decades for cancer to grow, that most (but not all) people die long before it would be detected. rBGH-dairy would be expected to speed the growth of these undetectable cancers so that within a decade or two we will likely see huge increases in detectable cancers in persons over 40 years old. Infants generally do not yet have small cancers, so IGF-1 will cause cancer cell proliferation.
    • “IGF-1 levels from rBGH-dairy would only increase by 1%.” This refers to bound IGF-1 and not the more potent, free-form IGF-1.
    • “IGF-1 is destroyed by pasteurization”. Wrong. Properly-conducted studies show an increase from pasteurization.
    • “IGF-1 levels from rBGH-dairy is commonly found in cows in certain lactation periods.” Milk from cows is pooled in tanker trucks. Each individual cow has milk with different IGF-1 levels, but since they are mixed in tanker trucks and at the factory, the average intake of IGF-1 by consumers is somewhat stable. With rBGH-dairy, these averages increase by a frightening 70% to 1000%.
  2. rBGH-Dairy Leads to Increased Antibiotic Residues In Dairy
    Cows that are injected with the genetically-engineered hormone rBGH are prone to sickness such as infections of the udder (mastitis). This leads to an increase in pus in the milk as well as antibiotic residues. While milk is checked for a few different antibiotics, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) has reported that milk with significant levels of antibiotics does get through to the consumer largely because the milk is checked for only a limited number of antibiotics. This will invariably lead to an increase in the number of antibiotic resistent diseases in children and adults.
  3. rBGH is Not Destroyed by Pasteurization and Ends Up in Dairy Foods
    Monsanto’s genetically-engineered rBGH is different than normal BGH found in dairy foods.

    “Earlier this month, five (5) scientists from Canada’s Health Protection Branch now report that they were pressured to approve rBGH despite discovering that a key pre-approval study was misrepresented in a summary by Monsanto and further misrepresented by the FDA in the journal Science. In 1990, the FDA claimed that a study of rBGH on rats showed that it “is not orally active in rats.” The FDA recented admitted to an Associated Press reporter that they did not examine the data of that study. The Canadian scientists examined the data and found that the 20-30% of the rats had primary antibody responses to orally ingested rBGH. This shows that rBGH (which differs from natural BGH) was absorbed. The male rats developed cysts and had prostate gland effects.” [ ]

What is particularly reprehensible is that Monsanto has reportedly threatended companies with lawsuits if they label their milk as being “rBGH-free”! This means that children at school have no way to tell if they milk was produced by the use of rBGH. They appear to be trying to prevent people from making up their own minds about what to ingest! Currently, most people can avoid rBGH-dairy by purchasing certified organic milk and other dairy products at the local health food store. While it may be slightly more expensive, it will likely save money on medical bills in the long run.
Other resources for rBGH information on the Internet:

Pure Food rBGH Information (Highly Recommended!)
Rachel’s Environmental & Health Weekly rBGH Info
The rBGH Time Bomb
rBGH — Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone — It’s Bad News
Milk, rBGH, and Cancer (Rachel’s Environment & Health Weekly)
Reporters File Suit After Fox TV was Pressured by Monsanto to Cancel News Report on rBGH
Monsanto Violates Federal Law (Food Safety Week)