organic milk vs. hormone free milk

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

two more notes:

additional BGH promotes factory farming at a cost to the family farmer

additional BGH creates greater cost to the tax payer - even before the addition of rBGH given to cows - the gov't was paying subsidies to farmers to keep farmers from producing (I know, my SIL famiily profitted pretty nicely from this)- there was a glut - this was a big deal at the time, I remember many arguing what was the purpose of producing more?....so with increased production comes either increased subsidies or increased family farmers put out of business....

as a result many family farmers turned to purposely producing milk without additional GH either because they were opposed to it - or to find a niche that would help them stay afloat

off my soapbox - hope this has provided some "food for thought" - (no pun intended! )

 

[Free4Life11]

So I went to the store tonight...$5.39 for a gallon of organic milk. I think I'll take my chances

 

[pumba]

Many consumers express concerns about milk that comes from cows treated with artificial growth hormone. These drugs, called rBST (recombinant bovine somatotropin, also called rGBH, recombinant bovine growth hormone), artificially force cows to produce more milk. Concerns in the European Union based on the protection of animal health and welfare have resulted in a ban of the use of Artifical Growth Hormone. Further the product is not approved for use in Canada.

In order to carry the Maine Quality Seal, dairies must purchase milk from farms that do not use artificial growth hormone, and at least 80% of their milk must come from local Maine Dairy farms. At Oakhurst we are proud to carry both the Maine Quality Seal and our own Farmers Pledge emblem signifying that all Oakhurst Milk is made without artificial growth hormone.

Although the FDA has approved use of artificial growth hormone in the United States, Oakhurst knows that consumers want a choice. So Oakhurst will continue working only with local farmers who pledge not to use artificial growth hormone. We feel so strongly about our Pledge that we pay our dairy farmers a premium to supply us with milk from cows that are not injected with artificial growth hormone.

We believe, and our farmers agree, that untreated cows are healthier, happier cows.

So for the sake of consumers who want a choice, and for cows that happily give milk naturally, Oakhurst Dairy will continue its No Artificial Growth Hormone Pledge.

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

forgive me for adding one more article - but I was not aware of this "milk is milk" campaign. Hmmm, "milk is milk".. sounds oddly familiar, .... makes one wonder if geoff isn't employed by the campaign/industry. Here it is:


Despite Industry Propaganda Monsanto’s Bovine Growth Hormone Still Threatens Public Health

The "Milk is Milk" Industry Campaign Threatens Public Health

CHICAGO, Feb. 3 - - The Cancer Prevention Coalition and Organic Consumers Association today released the following statement by Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., professor emeritus, Environmental & Occupational Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health; Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition; and Ronnie Cummins, National Director, Organic Consumers Association.

Last month, the Hudson Institute's agribusiness-funded Center for Global Food Issues launched an aggressive "Milk is Milk" campaign to assure consumers that there is no difference between natural milk and that from cows injected with Monsanto's genetically-engineered or recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) to increase milk production and profitability. This campaign is also aimed at preventing organic dairy farmers and retailers from making "false or misleading claims to be hormone-free, (and) nutritional and animal welfare perceptions, such as happier cows." Responding to Hudson's complaints, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it will take action against such misleading marketing practices.

However, contrary to Hudson, there is a wealth of scientific information on the toxic veterinary effects of rBGH, major differences between rBGH and natural milk, and cancer risks posed by rBGH milk. Revealingly, Hudson uses the term rBST, recombinant Bovine Somatotropin, avoiding any reference to the word "Hormone" in Monsanto's original acronym rBGH.

Cows hyper-stimulated by repeated rBGH injections are seriously stressed. Such evidence, detailed in confidential Monsanto files submitted to the FDA in 1987, was anonymously leaked to one of us (Epstein) in November 1989. These files revealed widespread pathological lesions, infertility, and chronic mastitis, treated with illegal antibiotics. Acting on this information, in 1990 the House Committee on Government Operations charged "that Monsanto and the FDA have chosen to suppress and manipulate animal health test data-in efforts to approve commercial use" of rBGH. This charge is also consistent with the Committee's 1986 report, "Human Food Safety and the Regulation of Animal Drugs." This concluded that the "FDA has consistently disregarded its responsibility-has repeatedly put what it perceives are interests of veterinarians and the livestock industry ahead of its legal obligation to protect consumers-jeopardizing the health and safety of consumers of meat, milk and poultry."

By 1994, when FDA approved the use of rBGH under Monsanto's trade name Posilac, the label insert, seen only by dairy farmers, admitted that "its use is associated with increased frequency of use of medication in cows for mastitis," and some 20 other toxic effects. Such information on the Posilac label is clearly inconsistent with Hudson's criticism of "happier cow" claims by organic dairy farmers.

Also contrary to Hudson, rBGH milk differs qualitatively and quantitatively from natural milk. Fat levels, particularly long chain saturated fatty acids incriminated in heart disease, are increased, while levels of a thyroid hormone enzyme are increased. Furthermore, the high incidence of chronic mastitis in rBGH injected cows results in contamination of their milk with pus, and with antibiotics used to treat the infection, with risks of allergic reactions and nationwide antibiotic resistance. Less well recognized is contamination of rBGH milk with the hormone itself, and immunological evidence of absorption of the hormone from the intestine.

Even more seriously, rBGH milk is contaminated with high levels of the natural Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1), which regulates cell growth, division and multiplication throughout life, particularly in infants and young children; Eli Lilly, in its application for registration of rBGH, admitted that IGF-1 blood levels of injected cows are increased up to ten-fold. IGF-1 is resistant to pasteurization and digestion, and is readily absorbed from the small intestine. Monsanto's own data revealed that feeding IGF-1 to adult rats for only two weeks significantly increased body and liver weights, and bone length.

More critically, increased IGF-1 blood levels have been incriminated as a major cause of cancer. IGF-1 induces uncontrolled growth of normal human breast cells in tissue culture, and has been incriminated in their transformation to cancer cells. Some 30 publications, dating back to 1985, have reported strong associations between increased IGF-1 blood levels with increased risks of colon, and breast cancers. A 1998 study, based on 300 healthy nurses, showed that elevated IGF-1 blood levels are strongly associated with up to a seven-fold increased risk of developing premenopausal breast cancer. This is the highest known risk, approximating to that of a strong family history. More recent studies have also shown strong associations between increased IGF-1 blood levels and prostate cancer.

Of related concern is evidence that elevated IGF-1 levels inhibit the body's normal ability to protect itself from microscopic cancers by the natural process of programmed cell destruction, known as "apoptosis." This promotes the growth and invasiveness of early cancers, and also decreases their responsiveness to chemotherapy.

Acting on this cumulative evidence, a 1999 European Commission report by a team of internationally recognized experts concluded: "Avoidance of rBGH dairy products in favor of natural products would appear to be the most practical and immediate "dietary intervention to . . . (achieve) the goal of preventing cancer." Furthermore, this warning has been endorsed (in our 2002 publication in a leading scientific journal) by over 100 leading independent experts in cancer prevention and public health, besides citizen activist groups.

This endorsement was coupled with insistence that the public has an absolute right-to-know of information on avoidable causes of cancer, a democratic right which the agribusiness and FDA continue to subvert.

MEDIA CONTACTS
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., professor emeritus Environmental & Occupational Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health, and Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition, 2121 West Taylor Street MC 922, Chicago, IL 60612; phone 312-996-2297; e-mail epstein@uic.edu; web www.preventcancer.com.

Ronnie Cummins, National Director, Organic Consumers Association, 6101 Cliff Estate Road, Little Marais, MN 55614; phone 218-226-4164; e-mail ronnie@organicconsumers.org; web www.organicconsumers.org.

 

[Geoff_M]

that's all well and good if you trust the FDA - some of us do not.

It's not just the FDA... or Monsanto. Much of what I have said here (such as bovine growth hormone's presence in all milk) can also be confirmed by any number of research universities.

That is YOUR truth, but not necessarily THE truth.

Scientific "truth" isn't a subjective evaluation such as "beauty". The "scientific method" is not an abstract concept. You propose a theory, you design a test for the theory and determine the criteria for success, and if the test succeeds, the test must be repeatable. You're confusing "belief" with "truth".

Also - no long term studies on BGH effects on Humans - so no one really knows -

This is really a hollow argument. This is true with any recently approved drug... for human or animal.

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

The EU has been pretty much universally GMO-phobic... No matter how much data exists regarding the safety of genetically modified products, the EU won't touch 'em. As for Canada's reason for not approving rBST, don't take my word for it, take theirs:

Why is rBST not approved for use in Canada?

rBST was reviewed by Health Canada in the 1990's. Although it was determined that it did not pose a health risk to humans, there were animal health concerns, and therefore it was never approved for sale in Canada.

Health Canada Link

So unless you wish to distrust the Canadian "FDA" too, they've also said that "it was determined that it did not pose a health risk for humans". Update: It's also important to note that neither Canada nor the EU prohibits the importation of milk or meat products from rBST treated cows. That pretty much undercuts the notion that they view rBST as a human food safety issue. The "animal health concern" that Canada was concerned with had to do with a slightly higher rate of mastitis.

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.

Please understand that I'm not arguing for rBST use. If there is a valid argument for not using it, it's the effect on US farm policy. I think it's a reasonable argument that we should look at farm price supports for farmers when they are employing rBST. However, this has nothing to do with the human safety issue.

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.

Really? It says that there's no bovine growth hormone found in "organic" milk?

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

ALl i am saying is that the scientific truth depends on which studies you choose to believe (no confusion here - I understand scientific truth and scientific method very well)- and I think I already gave one good example of why not to trust the FDA's. Both sides use scientific method. I know you would like others to believe that the other side is just about "junk science" and what did you say, urban myth (that is kinda too far fetch to be believed don't you think ? I mean really, urban myth????) - but that is simply not true.

And as for the refuting that there is no BGH in organic milk - I believe someone else already addressed that - there IS , the concern is the ADDED rBGh and the info I cited refutes all your other claims.(that there is no difference between BGH and rBGH - that it is not in the milk, that there is no health concern, etc)...nice try at a smoke screen, but not very effective...do you work for the industry - Monsanto, Hudson...seriously(!!!), as you tout a pretty good "company line"? Everything you have had to say seems to come straight from the "milk is milk" propaganda???? Did you even read the study????

Ah well - I think the info I cited speaks for itself!!! I will let others who are interested decide for themselves.

 

[Geoff_M]

I know you would like others to believe that the other side is just about "junk science" and what did you say, urban myth (that is kinda too far fetch to be believed don't you think ? I mean really, urban myth????) - but that is simply not true.

Claiming that rBST use grows breasts on 6 year olds is "junk science". Claiming "organic" milk is "hormone free" is "junk science". Claiming "natural" is inherently better than "artificial" is "junk science".

Did you even read the study????

Yep, I looked at it. Here were my observations... CU appears to have cherry-picked a total of eight studies using wildly different protocols from three companies. One of the studies used a grand total of eight cows! I can assure you based on the sample sizes these weren't the larger pivotal studies that Monsanto used as part of their New Drug Application with the FDA. The prime author of the CU piece also admitted this with regard to rBST:

Even Michael Hansen, a scientist with Consumers Union (which publishes Consumer Reports) and the most cited opponent of genetic engineering in agriculture, acknowledges that "there is no conclusive evidence" of danger.

SFC Link

There's one more point about the IGF-1 "controversy": IGF-1 levels in milk fluctuates from animal to animal. The amount of increased IGF-1 attributed to rBST is less than the variation naturally found in rBST free cows. Which is the crux of my inital point. It wouldn't be hard to find a dairy of untreated cows that produced milk with higher levels of IGF-1 than another herd treated with rBST. This is the reason why a lab cannot "finger" milk from cows treated with rBST. The point is not refuted.

As for the cancer "scare" piece.... Wow, that was a dussy! For starters, the hit piece simply states "increased IGF-1 blood levels" have been associated with any number of ailments. Rule #1 in human toxicology: The dose makes the poison. The piece leaves the level of increase associated with the illness (and more importantly how that increase relates to the increase in milk attributed to rBST) to the reader's imagination. I think that if rBST could be mathematically shown to put one's IGF-1 consumption "over the top" on this front, they would have screamed that fact at us, no? Also, again, seeing as milk naturally contains IGF-1, how is the article not viewed as a health indictment against ALL consumption of cow's milk???

do you work for the industry - Monsanto, Hudson...seriously(!!!)

Yes I do. But not for Monsanto, Elanco, or anyone else that markets a rBST product. And for the record I get a big kick out of the claims that the FDA is a "tool" of "Big Pharma". We get a big kick out of that at work. For the record, drug companies feel the same way in dealing with the FDA as most Americans do with the IRS! Their word is final, they are unpredictable, they effectively hold your "life" in their hands, they can swoop in without notice, and you have to do whatever they say. That's not the description of a "lap poodle" in my book.

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

ah , this brings us around to what I originally stated: we will just have to agree to disagree, my friend! We have both presented to others what we feel is good info. We will have to let it stand at that.

 

[Geoff_M]

ah , this brings us around to what I originally stated: we will just have to agree to disagree, my friend!

I'm afraid I can't go along with that. With existing scientific evidence, either it can be shown that milk from rBST treated cows is a human health threat, or it can't. We can certainly debate the facts surrounding the issue, but something can't be both "safe" and "unsafe" at the same time. And seeing as even nations that have not approved rBST for use in their country have no problem with their citizens consuming imported milk and meat products from rBST treated animals, there is much concensus among the world's health agencies that rBST poses no demonstrable threat to human food safety. "Better safe than sorry" isn't a scientific argument, nor should it be a basis for health policy.

I honestly have to hand it to the "organic" companies. They done an incredible marketing job of convining people to pay up to twice the market rate for their products when a food lab can't conclusively differentiate their product from the "other guy's". The last time I can recall an industry pulling that off was in the hey-days of "designer waters" like Perrier. Being a solid Capitalist... my hat's off to them!

 

[Miss Jasmine]

I'm another Soy person. The only problem I have is cheese. I still like regular cheese, but I am working on that, otherwise Soy Milk, Soy Yogurt, etc. Cow's milk grosses me out.

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

(heavy sigh!)....Geoff:

I think you have to know when to drop it and just leave it at that. If I wanted to go round with you, we could be here forever, but there would be little point. I respect that you are passionate about your beliefs - so I am - we won't change each others minds - and everyone else has to make up their own.

Have a good day!

 

[budbeerlady]

It makes me wonder when in the last 10 years (it seems) the amount of lactose intolerant people has skyrocketed! Lactose intolerant or rBgh intolerant? I know instantly if my stomach starts to digest the stuff as it empties it self of it. We should leave things as mother nature intended.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Organic milk? Hormone free milk? Puuusssh those prices. Let's hear it for marketing!

And I'll take my water right from the faucet with some ice thank you.