7

In a popular Youtube video about an investigation into Monsanto's push for BGH/BST by Fox News reporters (and their subsequent dismissal), at around 1:50, it claims that

"...the longest test they did for human toxicity was 90 days on 30 rats."

Is there proof to support this claim? Or rather, is there documentation existing showing that more testing was done than this?

Note: There are other questions S.SE regarding the safety, etc. of BGH, but I'm specifically addressing the claim that the human trial was so paltry.

5

According to the FDA, it would appear that this (rather dubious-sounding claim) is in fact true.

After going through some details on the 90-day rat oral study, the FDA claims that no further studies are required, due to the fact that the 90-day study has shown there is no biological availability, and therefore no activity of rbGH on rats. (emphasis mine)

FDA believes that the available data confirm that biologically significant amounts of rbGH are not absorbed in humans following the consumption of milk from cows treated with rbGH. Oral toxicity studies of longer duration are not necessary because rbGH at dietary levels found in the milk of rbGH-treated cows is not significantly biologically available.

  • 3
    I think it's important to place the emphasis on availability, not activity. It's not "we fed it to rats and it didn't do anything", it's "we fed it to rats and no measurable amount made it into their blood." – hobbs Dec 25 '14 at 5:44
  • @hobbs You're right, edited. – March Ho Dec 25 '14 at 7:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .