She examines the decision-making processes at Monsanto that led to their making the drug available and discusses corporate, academic, and regulatory decision-making in the context of a restructured global political economy for agriculture. Mills shows that there was consensus about the scientific evidence but interpretation of that evidence differed depending on the context from which it was viewed. Scientists who analysed it for regulatory bodies interpreted it differently than scientists in corporate or academic institutions, and scientists in Canada and Europe interpreted it differently than those in the United States. In the United States it was assumed that any problems arising from its use could be taken care of within the existing dairy system; in Canada and Europe these problems were regarded as legitimate animal welfare issues. While all regulatory bodies agreed that human health problems were unlikely, in Canada the Health Protection Branch questioned this, but ultimately rejected the drug on animal health grounds.

Carleton University, Ottawa

Lisa N. Mills' profile page

"A significant contribution to research. Mills' comparison with the U.S. helps relate Canadian studies to the literature. There are few studies in the literature that draw together these fields and levels of analysis." Christina Chociolko, Environmental Sciences, University of British Columbia "One of the major strengths of this book is that it provides accurate and detailed chronological detail about the regulatory decision-making processes for bGH in Canada and the U.S." Frederick Buttel, Rural Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison