organic milk vs. hormone free milk

[scubamouse]

anyone know the difference?

trader joe's just raised the prices on their organic milk and at the same time started labeling their non-organic milk as rBST-free. Anyone know the difference? the r-BST free milk is MUCH cheaper

i'm trying to make sure my kids don't have milk w/growth hormones in it. I think the rBST would get that but are there other things cows get in non-organic that that wouldn't show up in organic?

 

[Geoff_M]

I'm trying to make sure my kids don't have milk w/growth hormones in it.

Sorry to bring you some bad news, but ALL milk contains bovine growth hormones. This is the primary reason the FDA prohibits "organic" milk from being labeled "Hormone Free". As for the difference, the main difference is the price. Send a sample of each to a lab and they can't reliably tell them apart. Trader Joe has shown some pretty slick marketing! They can get around the FDA ban by saying their milk is "rBST Free" instead of saying their product "Contains only natural bovine growth hormone!"

 

[budbeerlady]

I dont believe this, organic milk cows must be fed feed that is not chemically enhanced to be organic. Arent they usually free range cows? I think hormone free cow milk could have been fed feed and not just grasses and such. I dont get sick of organic milk from our store so it must be rbst free. That stuff does a number on my stomach.

 

[barkley]

around here (we have lots of dairys near by) the big issue is those producers who regularly treat the cows with antibiotics. there is concern that by being exposed to them via milk consumption as kids there is a problem with these same kids being resistant to standard anitbiotic treatments when they are medicaly necessary. apparantly there has been a very noticable trend with kids having to use the much stronger antibiotics than normaly prescribed for common infections (ears, strep) and the local doctors point to the change occuring around the time the introduction of antibiotics on a regular basis to the milking cows got to be a popular practice.

 

[Geoff_M]

If you like "organic" milk better, or think it tastes better, that's another issue. But the fact remains, all milk contains somatotropins... be they natural or man-made. Here's the FDA's word on the matter:

FDA Warns Milk Producers to Remove "Hormone Free" Claims From the Labeling Of Dairy Products

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today issued Warning Letters to four manufacturers of whole milk, reduced fat milk and ice cream, informing them that their products are misbranded because the labels contain the false statements, "No Hormones" or "Hormone Free."

"FDA is committed to assuring that consumers are provided with truthful information on product labels," said FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan, MD., Ph.D.. "FDA will continue to take strong action to protect American consumers from products with labeling that is false or misleading."

During recent inspections, FDA investigators collected labels of dairy products, including various milk and ice cream products. FDA reviewed the labels and determined that the statements "No Hormones" and "Hormone Free" are false claims, and therefore, the products are misbranded under section 403(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act). Under section 403(a) of the Act, a product is misbranded if any information presented on the label or labeling is false or misleading.

The Warning Letters explain that "No Hormones" and "Hormone Free" are false claims because all milk contains naturally occurring hormones, and milk can not be processed in a manner that renders it free of hormones.

FDA also cautioned the firms that the agency could pursue further action such as seizure and/or injunction, if they fail to take prompt action to correct their labels.

FDA has stated that food manufacturers who do not use milk from cows treated with recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) may voluntarily inform consumers of this fact on their product labels or labeling, provided that the statements are truthful and not misleading.

Before the 1993 approval of rbST, FDA determined that the recombinant, or genetically engineered form of bST is virtually identical to a cow's natural somatotropin, a hormone produced in the pituitary gland that stimulates the production of milk. During that rbST approval process, FDA concluded that there is no significant difference between milk from treated and untreated cows. For that reason, FDA also concluded it does not have the authority to require special labeling for milk and dairy products from rbST-treated cows, and that producers have no basis for claiming that milk from cows not treated with rbST is safer than milk from rbST-treated cows.

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/fprbst.html

 

[Geoff_M]

there is concern that by being exposed to them via milk consumption as kids there is a problem with these same kids being resistant to standard anitbiotic treatments when they are medicaly necessary.

If an antibiotic is able to find it's way into a cow's milk supply beyond trace amounts, the FDA sets a legal "discard" period. Once an animal is given that antibiotic, all milk from that animal must be dumped down the drain until a specified amount of time has passed once the treatment has been discontinued. Allowing antibiotic laden milk from the "discard" period into the food supply is a federal crime.

The whole animal-antibiotic-human-antimicrobial-resistance issue revolved around something else. The theory is that animal use of antibiotics (given as a means to keep an animal healthy and growing, instead of giving them drugs only when sick) triggers drug resistance in bacteria... and that resistant bacteria then infects humans. On one level this "makes sense", however, the bulk of the type of anibiotics given to animals are "old" general human antibiotics such as penicillin and tetracyciline... instead of the newer more powerful generations of human antimicrobials. The theory also neglicts to take into account how much of the antimicrobial resistance is due to human over-use of antibiotics in humans.

 

[budbeerlady]

I have no problem with natural, its the other stuff we give them. I could drink milk, eat cheese, ice cream no problem untill about rbGH 1994-1995ish. Now if I have it I swear the stuff is trying to kill me from the inside. Not so with organic milk and amish cheeses, some imported cheese. And good point on the antibiotics, not to mentian the (seemingly) early development of physically of some kids. We stick to the organic for DD, even her pediatrician said was a good idea.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Just the same--I'd rather have nothing artificial in my dairy for my kids (I don't eat dairy--blek!). I don't sweat it if we are somewhere and they wish to have it--but ever since they were old enough to drink milk and eat yogurt--they have had organic. I don't want them to have breasts when they are 6 and I have an aversion (personal) to dyes in food and prefer they not be consuming neon colored yogurt.

We draw the line at organic cheese. Hubby consumes so much of it and the girls so little that I don't want to spend a lot of dollars on an ounce of cheese (our choices here are limited for that). We by the Vermont something or other cheeses since they sell cheddar cheese that isn't bright orange.

 

[Geoff_M]

I don't want them to have breasts when they are 6

They won't with the "artificial" stuff in dairy... and to follow the logic, they won't sprout horns either or start chewing their cud. If this were the fault of rBST, then any dairy products would have the same result. The more dairy your kids eat, the more bovine growth hormone they ingest... period! If you don't believe me, just ask PETA!

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

They won't with the "artificial" stuff in dairy... and to follow the logic, they won't sprout horns either or start chewing their cud. If this were the fault of rBST, then any dairy products would have the same result. The more dairy your kids eat, the more bovine growth hormone they ingest.

The cows already have bgh, do they not--so adding it to them--gives them more, does it not? So drinking the same amount of milk -- what is it now 2-3 glasses a day, would expose you to more bgh without any change in your consumption habits.

Better safe than sorry. So much junk in our ecosytem nowadays and no real proof on what causes what--the more junk that can be avoided, the better.

Also--due to my limited consumption of milk and my pint-sized kids...the shelf life of organic milk is longer. Now it could have something to do with how long it takes to get to the store shelf--but organic milk I can stock up and a month or two from now it is still good (unopened) and regular milk--at least at our stores--has only a fraction of the shelf life. When opened--the organic stuff is good for 7 days....the regular stuff, we tossed out sooo much due to spoilage and it was only opened for half as long.

So for our logistics--organic is just more practical for our family.

 

[720L]

"i'm trying to make sure my kids don't have milk w/growth hormones in it. I think the rBST would get that but are there other things cows get in non-organic that that wouldn't show up in organic?"

RBST is a synthetic growth hormone they inject in cows for better milk production. Not all cows have it unless they are injected with it. The non-organic milk may come from cows that have been given antibiotics to treat things like mastitis, etc. They probably eat feed that comes from fields that have been sprayed with pesticides. (I grew up on a dairy farm)

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

I'm sticking with organic! Sorry I don't buy geoff's info about the bovine growth hormone or the antibiotics - not going to risk my families heath. I have no problem paying more for it. There is clearly info supporting both sides and I know who/what I believe. Not going to get into any big debate either - this is one issue where everyone has to decide for themselves - and it all ends up being a "we will have to agree to disagree" .

We rarely do cows milk - mostly organic rice milk - we do get DD organic choc cows milk occassionally for her school lunches. I love the longer shelf life too!

 

[caitycaity]

you know the other alternative is just not to drink cow milk (or drink it in limited quantities). that's what i do. i don't believe it is natural for non-babies to continue to drink milk after nursing.

but that is a debate for another time.

 

[Geoff_M]

The cows already have bgh, do they not--so adding it to them--gives them more, does it not? So drinking the same amount of milk -- what is it now 2-3 glasses a day, would expose you to more bgh without any change in your consumption habits.

For starters, you're overlooking the function of rBST... it makes the cow produce more milk. Therefore any larger amount of hormone present would be diluted across a larger volume of milk produced.

You're also making some major assumptions about bovine metabolism. The insides of a cow isn't like one big container. You can't assume that the presence of rBST means that more hormone is present in the milk. Animals metabolize stubstances differently, it doesn't spread through all organs and tissues in a uniform manner. For example, some antibiotics have no discard periods when used in cows because none of it makes it into the milk. Therefore, on top of the dilution oversight, you can't even assume that rBST will result in more hormone even being in the milk to begin with.

The FDA said they couldn't tell a definitive difference between the two types of milk. I assure you their analysis went way beyond them conducting a "Pepsi Taste Test".

As I've said before, if you wish to pay more $$$ for "organic" "hormone free" milk because you think it tastes better, you feel it is easier on your "plumbing", or it keeps longer... then be my guest. More power to you. But please don't go around using urban legends and junk science to try and claim that it's "healthier" or "safer".

 

[Free4Life11]

I had no idea milk was such a problem....I probably go through a gallon of milk once a week!! Does the organic milk taste different? I might buy some today.

 

[Geoff_M]

Free4Life11, You poor thing! You probably had no idea your parents were poisoning you all those years!

Or perhaps if people want to take it a step further, they can do what one family we know does. They only consumer "raw" milk straight from the dairy. They think that's the only healthy way to consume milk!

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

Geoff:

that's all well and good if you trust the FDA - some of us do not. Whenever I see a study or report I ask myself who is the source/who conducted the study and what is their agenda. You clearly feel the FDA/your sources are truthful and that their agenda is to assure safety - therefore your conclusion is that organic milk is safe and anything else is junk science. That is YOUR truth, but not necessarily THE truth. Some of us do not feel they represent the truth or that their agenda is that simple - therefore our conclusion is that organic is safer - that is OUR truth. I could just as easily state that yours is the junk science - as I do not believe it. Again, we will have to agree to disagree - but please don't act so condescending to the rest of us by purporting to be presenting THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

Some info:

Genetically engineered Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH)
Both the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) and the Consumer's Union, publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, have warned of the potential hazards to human health caused by consuming products derived from rBGH-treated cows.
While rBGH is banned in Europe and Canada, and has been boycotted by 95 percent of US dairy farmers, the FDA, Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Agriculture continue to license the drug (and other new genetically engineered foods) without pre-market safety tests. Thanks to industry pressure, genetically engineered foods are NOT required to carry identifying labels. According to the US Federal Office of Management and Budget the projected increase in milk production caused by rBGH introduction will cost American taxpayers an additional $116 million of dollars for further price supports in 1995 alone. And what about the cows? rBGH use will cause suffering to millions of animals: rBGH is like "crack" for cows. It "revs" their system and forces them to produce a lot more milk - but it also makes them sick. Even the FDA admits that cows injected with rBGH could suffer from increased udder infections (mastitis), severe reproductive problems, digestive disorders, foot and leg ailments, and persistent sores and lacerations.

(my note: info above is a few years old - but as far as I can tell Canada has still banned it and I am pretty sure European Union has as well)


Bovine Growth Hormone -What You May Not Know-
by Michael Greger

"There have been no long term studies of BGH's effects on humans. The congressional General Accounting Office has warned of the potential human health hazards from the consumption of milk or flesh (about 40% of the beef used to make hamburgers come from "old" dairy cows) derived from BGH-treated cows. The Consumer's Union went on to state that the FDA should not have even approved it. BGH "treatment" causes significantly increased levels of another growth hormone called IGF-1 in the milk, according to a 1990 study sponsored by Monsanto and published in Science. Bovine IGF-1 is identical to the IGF-1 naturally found in humans." read the rest of the document (my note - sorry I didn't get it all - you can google if interested...)

(interesting to note : banned in Europe and Canada - if it is so safe - why is this? Also - no long term studies on BGH effects on Humans - so no one really knows - if Monsanto wanted to be responsible - perhaps they would be willing to do the studies!?)

I also found a great study: "Potential Public Health Impacts of the Use of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin in Dairy Production" by Consumers Union - pretty technical but you can easily tell that it pretty clearly refutes everything geoff had to report. It is very long so I won't post it here - but you can find it by using google if you are interested

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

One reason not to trust the FDA : (sure I could find more if I keep digging!)

Statement of
Michael Hansen, Ph.D., Research Associate

Consumer Policy Institute*, Consumers Union

On

FDA's Safety Assessment of Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone

December 15, 1998



I would like to talk to you about some disturbing information on FDA's review of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH) which emerged in September from a Canadian investigation.


The Canadian investigation, conducted by staff of Health Canada, their equivalent of the FDA, reveals that US FDA misled the public about a key 90-day Monsanto rbGH rat feeding study. FDA, in an article in Science magazine in 1990, said that the study showed "no toxicologically significant changes" in the rbGH-treated rats. Based largely on this conclusion, FDA did not require the normal human safety toxicological assessment usually required for a veterinary drug.


This 90-day Monsanto rat feeding study has never been published. However the Health Canada review team obtained the complete study and found that it actually showed that 20 to 30 percent of the rats in the high dose group developed primary antibody responses to rbGH, suggesting it was being absorbed into the bloodstream. There were also cysts on the thyroid in some male rats. In the view of the Canadian scientists, and in our view as well, these are toxicologically significant changes, and should have triggered a full human health review, including assessment of potential carcinogenic, immunological and teratogenic effects. Yet the FDA did not even mention the existence of these results when they discussed this study in their 1990 Science article.


We are deeply concerned that Judith Juskevich and Greg Guyer, then both staff scientists with the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine, reported on this study in Science magazine, a highly respected journal, in such a misleading manner. Since Health Canada had the full study, we assume that all the data were provided to FDA as well. However, if Monsanto misled FDA by withholding some of the data from the study, then we call on FDA to make this clear and take appropriate action against Monsanto. Consumers depend on both companies and regulators to be objective and truthful in regulatory proceedings. Consumer confidence in the safety of the food supply depends on this trust.


We would like to be clear that this study, by itself, in no way proves that rbGH, which is present in the milk of rbGH treated dairy cows, poses a hazard to human health. But neither does it show that there is no possibility of any healthy hazard, as FDA claimed it did. This study should in fact have triggered a full toxicological assessment of rbGH's safety to humans.

******************************************************

As I said - there is no ONE TRUTH: I can't tell you absolutely that organic milk is the safest option - anymore than Geoff can tell you non-organic milk is safe and there is no difference between the two......you have to investigate for yourself - and decide for yourself and your own family!!!!

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

you know the other alternative is just not to drink cow milk (or drink it in limited quantities). that's what i do. i don't believe it is natural for non-babies to continue to drink milk after nursing.

but that is a debate for another time.

Non-milk drinker here!!! Just find it disgusting. My daughter prefers soy milk...so I just go with it.