Geoff_M said:
Here it is:
Link
I won't rehash it, but if you want to buy "organic" milk because you personally think it tastes better, doesn't upset your tummy, or think cows on "organic" farms are happy cows, then go for it. But the bottom line is that in the lab "organic" and "non-organic" milk can't be reliably be told apart. Hormone levels in milk vary from cow to cow and breed to breed (bovine hormones are in
all milk). Yes, treated cow have overall increases in hormone levels in their milk but the increase is less than level of natural flucations in cows, so it's actually possible to have a milk from a treated herd that actually has lower levels of hormones in their milk than milk from a "organic" herd.
The Green Guide responds:
When speaking of hormones in milk, it is important to first clarify terms. As the FDA has made abundantly clear to milk producers, there is no such thing as "hormone free" milk. All milk, regardless of fat content, contains naturally occurring hormones that cannot be processed away. Not all milk, however, comes from cows that have been treated with
recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), also referred to as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH). rBST is presumably the source of your concern.
The Monsanto Company developed this genetically modified version of the naturally occurring pituitary hormone in cows and markets it under the name Posilac. The synthetic hormone, when injected into lactating dairy cows, increases milk production, but may cause health problems for both humans and cattle. The FDA approved the commercial use of rBST in 1993, and within a few years its use had been adopted in roughly 40% of US dairy herds. In the European Union, the use of rBST remains banned.
The health risks of rBST milk surround the increased presence of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I), a mediator of growth hormone action. According to a number of studies and an NIH technology assessment statement, the concentration of IGF-I is higher in milk from cows treated with rBST. The NIH states, moreover, that pasteurization has little or no effect on IGF-I. If pasteurization doesn't do the trick, there is little reason to believe that steamingas in your espressowill. "There is no evidence that steaming for that time will make the IGF-I inactive, that it will mitigate the problem," said Michael Hansen of the Consumer Union Policy Institute. In short, the hormones you're worried about will not be "boiled away."
More importantly, the question is whether IGF-I remains intact through human digestion and whether it is biologically active in humans. The FDA insists that any assumption that biologically-active IGF-I is absorbed into the body "is not supported by the main body of science." Reports from European scientists, however, suggest that possible hazardous effects of IGF-I are more difficult to rule out than the FDA is letting on. The wise choicenot to mention the best for cows and farmersis to stick to organic milk.
Those of you who have nursed -- think about this. There's no way that could happen without injuring the cow, and as Hannathy said, cows are expensive and well taken care of.
