Why is rBGH banned in other countries?

December 9, 2025 •

4 min read

According to the Dairy Farmers of Canada, the use of the artificial growth hormone rBGH was banned in Canada in 1999, joining many other nations around the world. The decision to ban rBGH in numerous countries is not based on a single reason, but rather a complex interplay of animal welfare issues, potential human health concerns, and economic considerations.

Quick Summary

An exploration of the multifaceted reasons for the international ban on rBGH, analyzing the impact on animal health, consumer safety debates, and regulatory approaches.

Key Points

Animal Welfare Concerns: Many countries banned rBGH due to documented health problems in cows, including increased rates of mastitis, lameness, and reproductive issues.
Precautionary Principle: Numerous nations, particularly in the EU, adopted the precautionary principle, banning the hormone based on credible suspicion of harm to animals and humans, despite a lack of definitive proof of human health risks.
Increased IGF-1 Levels: Milk from rBGH-treated cows contains higher levels of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), which some studies have controversially linked to potential cancer risks in humans.
Economic Disruption: In regions like the EU and Canada, rBGH was also banned to prevent market disruptions, as the hormone's increased milk production could have destabilized existing supply management systems.
Consumer Preference: Strong consumer demand for rBGH-free products has pressured many dairy producers worldwide to stop using the hormone, regardless of government regulations, leading to specific product labeling.
Varying Scientific Interpretations: While regulatory bodies like the FDA in the US have deemed rBGH safe for human consumption, other international authorities have interpreted the same scientific data differently, prioritizing animal health and consumer concerns.
Increased Antibiotic Use: The higher incidence of mastitis in rBGH-treated cows necessitates more antibiotics, contributing to concerns about antibiotic resistance, a significant public health issue.

A Closer Look at the Controversial Hormone

Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), also known as recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), is a synthetic hormone developed to increase milk production in dairy cows. While approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), its use is prohibited in many other countries, including Canada, the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. The global divergence in regulatory decisions highlights the contentious nature of this technology.

Animal Welfare Concerns

A primary factor in many countries' decisions to ban rBGH centers on animal health and welfare. Studies have shown that the use of this hormone can lead to significant health problems for cows. Increased milk production can cause metabolic stress resulting in painful conditions.

Increased Mastitis: This painful udder inflammation is often linked to rBGH and requires increased antibiotic use. Increased antibiotic use contributes to the risk of antibiotic resistance.
Lameness and Hoof Problems: High-stress conditions can lead to lameness and hoof disorders, causing pain and potentially shortening a cow's lifespan.
Reproductive Issues: rBGH-treated cows may experience more reproductive problems, including reduced fertility.

Human Health and Consumer Perception

While the FDA and WHO consider milk from rBGH-treated cows safe, many international bodies and consumer groups are concerned. A key debate point is Insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1).

Milk from rBGH-treated cows has higher IGF-1 levels. While pasteurization affects rBGH, IGF-1 is more stable and not fully inactivated. Human and bovine IGF-1 are identical, and some research suggests elevated IGF-1 might be linked to increased risk of certain cancers, though this link is not conclusive. This potential link, along with consumer preference for natural food, has driven market bans and demand for rBGH-free products.

Economic Considerations and the Precautionary Principle

Economic factors also influenced some bans. Countries like the EU and Canada have milk quota systems that could be disrupted by increased rBGH-induced production, potentially destabilizing their dairy markets.

Many international bans were guided by the precautionary principle: if a potential risk exists and there's no consensus that an action is harmless, the burden of proving harmlessness lies with those taking the action. Given scientific uncertainty about human health risks and evidence of harm to animal welfare, many countries chose caution.

Comparison: Pro-rBGH (USA) vs. Anti-rBGH (EU, Canada)


Feature	Pro-rBGH Stance (e.g., USA)	Anti-rBGH Stance (e.g., EU, Canada)
Regulatory Body	FDA approved based on extensive review.	Banned by national health and animal welfare agencies.
Animal Health	Argues that proper use mitigates risks; emphasizes increased production efficiency.	Cites studies showing increased rates of mastitis, lameness, and reproductive issues.
Human Health	Claims no significant difference in milk; states rBGH is inactive in humans and IGF-1 levels are within normal range.	Expresses concern over elevated IGF-1 levels in milk and potential links to health issues like cancer.
Economic Impact	Focuses on increased productivity and lower costs for consumers.	Concerned about market disruption from increased supply and potential negative impact on small farmers.
Guiding Principle	Risk assessment-based approach; relies on conclusive proof of harm.	Precautionary principle; bans based on credible suspicion of harm and lack of consumer benefit.
Market Labeling	Labels like "rBGH-free" allowed but must be truthful and not misleading.	Not applicable, as all dairy is rBGH-free; promotes national dairy as hormone-free.

Global Regulatory Divide

The differing regulatory approaches highlight the controversy. The FDA's 1993 approval, based partly on manufacturer studies, is debated. Canadian and European authorities analyzed the same data and concluded animal welfare risks were too high. The Codex Alimentarius Commission has not approved rBGH, making international challenges to bans difficult. This reflects a global trend prioritizing animal welfare and consumer perception alongside scientific data.

Impact on Dairy Industry and Consumer Choice

Regulatory differences mean varied consumer choices. Where rBGH is banned, all dairy is hormone-free. In the US, consumers rely on voluntary labeling. Consumer demand has led many US producers and retailers to go rBGH-free, reducing overall usage even without a federal ban.

Conclusion

International rBGH bans stem from animal welfare concerns, public uncertainty about human health risks, and economic policies. While the US asserts its safety, the precautionary principle and consumer demand for natural food led many countries to a more conservative approach. The controversy shows that food policy involves not just science but also values, ethics, and economics.

The Final Word

Ultimately, global responses to rBGH show food policy reflects cultural values, ethical views on animal treatment, and economic strategies. Many countries felt the potential for more milk didn't outweigh animal suffering and human health uncertainty, leading to bans. The rBGH controversy still impacts labeling, consumer choice, and dairy farming worldwide.

Frequently Asked Questions

rBGH, or recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone, is a synthetic hormone injected into dairy cows to increase milk production. It is a genetically engineered version of the naturally occurring bovine somatotropin (BST).

The European Union banned rBGH primarily due to significant animal welfare concerns, including increased rates of mastitis and lameness in cows. The decision was also influenced by the precautionary principle regarding potential human health impacts and economic concerns about market destabilization.

Yes, rBGH is still approved for use in the United States by the FDA. However, its usage has declined significantly over time due to market pressures and consumer preference for rBGH-free dairy, and many companies voluntarily label their products as such.

Cows treated with rBGH have been shown to have a higher incidence of several health issues, including mastitis (udder infections), lameness, and reproductive problems, which increase the need for veterinary intervention and antibiotics.

The FDA and WHO have concluded that milk from rBGH-treated cows is safe for human consumption, stating that the hormone itself is inactive in humans. However, concerns remain among consumer groups and some regulators about potential effects from higher levels of IGF-1 in the milk.

In countries with bans, all dairy is rBGH-free. In the US, look for labels that explicitly state "rBGH-free," "rBST-free," or "hormone-free". Organic dairy is also by definition rBGH-free.

Pasteurization can inactivate the rBGH hormone itself. However, it does not fully inactivate insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), which is present in higher levels in milk from rBGH-treated cows and remains a point of controversy.