Robert Cohen:
ROBERT COHEN - THE "NOTMILKMAN"
At Long Island University's Southampton College I studied
physiological psychology under Robert K. Orndoff, Ph.D., whom I consider
my mentor. I selected psychobiology as my major to prepare for a
career in biological research. I loved the challenge of exploring a
hypothesis, designing experiments to test it, and solving the riddles,
the maze of variables and influences associated with the scientific
investigation of living organisms and life processes. I was soon
immersed in laboratory research in the field of
psychoneuroendocrinology, studying the influence of hormones on brain
chemistry and subsequent mammalian behavior. I performed surgery on
hundreds of laboratory animals and learned how slight details, easily
overlooked, can drastically affect a research project, or nullify it
altogether. Undergraduate students, correctly instructed in performing
proper research techniques or experimental protocols, learn that very
subtle cues may modify and manipulate behavior.
We are all unique individuals. We are all the sum of our
previous experiences. All of my life experiences have made me into a
unique individual. I possess many skills. Those skills allow me to
write this book. I can communicate with scientists, understand
complicated scientific data, and I can translate scientific experience
into concepts easily understood by non-scientists. All of my life has
been a journey to take me to where I now am.
How "Science" Can Go Wrong
In performing research, a scientist must endeavor to eliminate
any variables which compromise that research. It's usually a good
idea, when treating one group of animals with a drug or device, to use a
control group. Without a control group one can never know what the
effects of that drug would be on the "untreated" group. This makes
sense! Undergraduate students are taught proper research techniques.
An example of how unanticipated variables can betray a scientist
illustrates the care that must be taken in designing and conducting
studies. Here is what occurred in one study in which I participated.
By telling you about this mistake, and revealing my techniques, and
subsequent discovery of a serious error, you might accept my credentials
and excuse the fact that I have no M.D. or Ph.D. after my name. I
helped to design a study intended to discover how the female hormone,
estrogen, worked inside of an animal's body. Where does estrogen go,
what tissues does it affect? Working with rats I injected a
radioactive form of estrogen (tritiated estradiol benzoate) into two
dozen animals. I carefully sacrificed these animals ("sacrificed", a
politically acceptable way of saying I killed them) and using surgical
techniques mastered from previous experience, I carefully separated
various organs and tissues for testing. (I had previously operated on
hundreds of animals, performing ovario-hysterectomies, ligating renal
arteries in kidney hypertension studies, implanting electrodes in
various areas of the brain, among other things). I was proficient at
isolating various tissues including thigh muscle, organs and brain
tissues.
Using a machine called a scintillation spectrometer which measured
the radioactive samples of estrogen, I was able to calibrate how, where
and in what amounts estrogen was bound to various organs and tissues.
The study provided enlightenment into previously conceived areas of
knowledge. I was excited, until a dreaded word emerged from deep
within my consciousness. A word never to be uttered by a surgeon or a
doctor treating a patient. A word to strike fear in the hearts of
scientists and lab personnel everywhere. "Mistake!" We had made a
mistake! I hadn't considered a variable so critical as to negate six
months of planning and compromise all results of the study. I rushed
to check, and found my worst fears confirmed. Rat Chow! Purina Rat
Chow! Made from alfalfa! Oh, no! Alfalfa contains a substance that
is almost identical in steroid structure to estrogen.
I tell this story to demonstrate how critical every detail of a
research project is. It was my responsibility to identify and
eliminate all possible extraneous variables, but I overlooked the
powerful influence of dietary hormones. The last thing scientists or
pharmaceutical companies want is to have their work questioned or
compromised. Twenty-four years would pass before I applied my
scientific training and knowledge and love of reading journal articles
and interpolating complicated scientific data to the milk controversy
generated by Monsanto's new genetically engineered hormone.
I doubt that many doctors or scientists have the opportunity, or
more specifically, the time and desire to spend three years reading,
analyzing every aspect of research, contacting hundreds of labs and
scientists, putting together a complete picture of how milk hormones
work and affect the human body. When people go to work they do their
jobs and then leave those jobs to go home. They have hundreds or
thousands of different tasks and assignments over a two-year period. I
had one. They went home for a weekend. I worked seven days per week.
I read and studied and analyzed.
The approval of the genetically engineered milk hormone was the
most controversial in the history of the Food and Drug Administration.
The amount of research submitted by Monsanto, 55,000 pages, overwhelmed
FDA reviewers. Monsanto invested $500 million in developing this new
drug and food additive. I became the one person in America to meet
with the FDA on the scientific merits of this controversy and on April
21, 1995, I was invited to the Center for Veterinary Medicine and
discussed many of the issues in this book with FDA scientists.
My children are the reason I developed an interest in milk. One
day in August 1994, I read a column written by Jane Heimlich, a health
and nutrition writer for Julian Whitaker's Health and Healing
newsletter. Her column explored all aspects of the controversy
surrounding the first genetically engineered product developed for our
food supply. This new hormone, recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST)
also was named recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH). The Monsanto
Agricultural Company of St. Louis, Missouri, had found a way to combine
the genetic material from a naturally occurring cow hormone with
bacteria. This new technology allowed Monsanto scientists to grow this
new version of the naturally occurring hormone inside of a specially
developed strain of bacteria so that the growth factor could be
inexpensively mass produced.
The bacteria were then "harvested" with sophisticated new
techniques, and the hormone collected. The new drug called re-
combinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) would then be injected into cows.
The rBST-treated cows then would produce more milk. The controversy
revealed that there might be problems with the milk. This was the
first I had heard of it. I called the publisher of this newsletter and
soon connected with Jane Heimlich. The more I learned, the more
concerned I became for my children. I certainly could control the milk
my children consumed. It was summer, but there were personnel working
at the Board of Education at the public school which they attended.
After a few phone calls I learned that their school was negotiating with
a new milk supplier. They were about to sign a contract to buy milk
from a company that was buying milk from dairies that treated their cows
with this new hormone. I protested this decision by writing letters,
making phone calls, and successfully stalled this decision. Instead,
the school bought milk from a supplier who stated that his dairy farmers
do not use the new hormone and he would not accept milk from cows
treated with rBST. That was good enough for me. I had won a minor
skirmish. Soon there'd be more battles.
