Cancéropôle Lyon Rhône-Alpes

Donald L. Yorlets, VMD
P.O. Box 205
4698 York Road
New Oxford, PA 17350

Recently South Central Pennsylvania has been plastered with new billboards touting the virtues of milk from Rutter’s Dairy. It is billed as “FREE OF ARTIFICIAL HORMONES” and “FREE OF ARTIFICIAL GROWTH HORMONES” on their milk jug labels.

I have been a large-animal veterinarian for 26 years and have been involved in the dairy industry all of my life. So, maybe I can help clarify what all this hormone talk is about. Was the “old milk” unsafe? Is the “new milk” really safer?

Hormones are naturally occurring compounds produced by all plants and animals (including humans) to regulate specific bodily functions. Take insulin for example, this is a protein hormone that helps our bodies utilize glucose (blood sugar)—without this hormone you will die. Our bodies produce and depend on hundreds and hundreds of hormones for us to live. Hormones are not limited to the animal kingdom; plants also depend on hormones to grow and develop.

So all of our food naturally contains many hormones, and consuming them is unavoidable. So now knowing that all food has many hormones, primarily protein based, what effect do they have on us? Well, protein hormones are simply broken down and digested to furnish our bodies with essential amino acids.

Let me first state that I have no concerns about the wholesomeness and safety of Rutter’s Milk or any other brand. My family has and will continue to buy Rutter’s Milk and know it is safe. My contention is that Rutter’s advertising is now very confusing and extremely misleading. So why is “no artificial hormones” coming up now?

Well in 1994 the FDA approved a synthetic compound named bovine somatotropin or rbST for short, it is also called bovine growth hormone (bGH). The “r” means that it was produced synthetically. This is a bio-identical hormone, — an exact copy of nature’s own bST, a protein hormone that is present in all cows and all cow’s milk in the exact same manner that human growth hormone (hGH) is present in human breast milk! Let me emphasize that BST, natural or synthetic is not a steroid and should not be confused with steroids.

So how is this used? Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that supplementing cows with bST would result in about a 10 percent increase in milk production. It wasn’t until recently that technology allowed for commercial manufacturing of bST. Since 1994 bST has been safely used by dairy producers to increase milk production. This product has been more thoroughly studied and evaluated than any other animal product. The FDA thoroughly examined its human safety, and during 12 years of use, I have never seen any harm to cows, which receive a simple injection every two weeks.

The increased milk production allows dairy farmers to produce our milk with fewer cows. This lowers production cost for dairy farmers and is better for the environment by reducing animal waste and land under production. These are all positive consequences of the use of rbST. Rutter’s however, joining a trend started by some national milk companies, has told its dairymen to stop using this safe and FDA-approved product. Long before Rutter’s joined the trend, milk companies found they could charge more for this product by convincing the unknowing consumer that this “new milk” is better and safer. The FDA has categorically stated that there is no difference between milk. All milk contains bST, and milk from treated cows contains no more bST than any other. In fact no test can distinguish between them.

Rutter’s advertisement would lead you to believe that artificial hormones are being added to the milk. The facts are that a bio-identical hormone was given to the cow to supplement her own natural levels of bST to increase her production.

Shame on Rutter’s. They are simply doing this for economic gain and not for food safety reasons. In addition to playing on people’s fears to hype their own milk, Rutter’s is not even compensating its dairymen for their increased cost as a result of losing this product.

Consumers need to know these facts: All milk contains bST, rbST is bio-identical to natural bST, all foods contain hormones, and use of rbST is good for the environment and helps local farmers. Rutter’s advertising that rbST is ”banned” in Canada and the European Union would lead you to believe that rbST milk is not safe. The reality is that while Canada and the European Union have not approved bST, it is not “banned”. Both of these countries have concluded that rbST milk is absolutely safe and they freely accept milk imports from countries using rbST. The use of bST in these countries is not approved for socio-economical reasons not for food safety reasons! Buying into the scare campaign of Rutter’s and other big dairy companies does nothing but take money out of your pocket and put it into theirs.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Henry I. Miller
New York Times - June 29, 2007

Stanford, Calif. - MILK occupies a special place in our lives and language. It has been dubbed natures most perfect food, and we speak sentimentally of the land of milk and honey and the milk of human kindness.

But things are turning sour for consumers of milk. The average price of a gallon of milk nationwide is up 37 cents since January, to $3.47. Strong demand and limited ability to increase production quickly are expected to increase prices more, and experts have speculated that the price per gallon could reach a record $5 by years end. High feed costs associated with the ramping up of American corn-based ethanol production are making it difficult to produce more milk.

Worldwide, prices are also at historically high levels. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organizations price index of traded dairy products has risen 46 percent since last November.

One way to ease the shortage and lower the prices is to take greater advantage of a proven 13-year-old biological technology that stimulates milk production in dairy cows a protein called recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST), or bovine growth hormone. The protein, produced naturally by a cows pituitary, is one of the substances that control its milk production. It can be made in large quantities with gene-splicing (recombinant DNA) techniques. The gene-spliced and natural versions are identical.

Bad-faith efforts by biotechnology opponents to portray rbST as untested or harmful, and to discourage its use, keep society from taking full advantage of a safe and useful product. The opponents limited success is keeping the price of milk unnecessarily high.

When rbST is injected into cows, their digestive systems become more efficient at converting feed to milk. It induces the average cow, which produces about eight gallons of milk each day, to make nearly a gallon more. More feed, water, barn space and grazing land are devoted to milk production, rather than other aspects of bovine metabolism, so that you get seven cows worth of milk from six.

This may not seem like a big deal, but when applied widely the effects are profound. For every million cows treated with rbST each year, 6.6 billion gallons of water (enough to supply 26,000 homes) are conserved, according to Monsanto, which makes rbST. With much of the nation enduring a drought and many cities in the West experiencing water shortages, this is a significant benefit.

The amount of animal feed consumed each year by those million rbST-supplemented cows is reduced by more than three billion pounds. This helps to keep the lid on corn prices, even as much of the nations corn harvest is diverted to producing ethanol for cars. And the amount of land required to raise the cattle and grow their food is reduced by more than 417 square miles.

At the same time, more than 5.5 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel (enough to power 8,800 homes) are saved, greenhouse gas emissions are lowered by 30,000 metric tons (because fewer cows means less methane produced by bovine intestinal tracts), and manure production is decreased by about 3.6 million tons, reducing the chances of runoff getting into waterways and groundwater.

Comprehensive studies by academics and government regulatory agencies around the world have found no differences in the composition of milk or meat from rbST-supplemented cows.

And consumers are apparently happy to drink milk from supplemented cows, in spite of efforts by biotechnology opponents to bamboozle milk processors and retailers into believing that consumers don’t want it. In various surveys to ascertain the factors that influence consumers milk purchasing decisions, the predominant considerations have been: price (80 percent to 99 percent), freshness (60 percent to 97 percent), brand loyalty (30 percent to 60 percent) and a claim of organic (1 percent to 4 percent). Only the organic claim is even remotely related to rbST supplementation. Unless prompted, the consumers surveyed didn’t mention rbST as a concern.

Some milk suppliers and food stores have increased the price of milk labeled rbST-free, even though it is indistinguishable from supplemented milk, and offer only this more expensive option, pre-empting consumers ability to choose on the basis of price.

Activists purely speculative concerns about rbST ranging from the destruction of small family farms to the risk of cancer have proven baseless. Before approval by the Food and Drug Administration, rbST underwent the longest and most comprehensive regulatory review of any veterinary product in history. Three years before the F.D.A. approved the marketing of milk from supplemented cows, its scientists, in an article published in the journal Science, summarized more than 120 studies showing that rbST poses no risk to human health.

Their conclusion was affirmed over the next several years by additional scientific reviews conducted by the National Institutes of Health, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the drug-regulatory agencies of Britain, Canada and the European Union, and by an issues audit done by the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general. These reviews noted that traces of bST are found in milk from all cows, supplemented or not. They also pointed out that, like other proteins, rbST is digested in the human gut. Moreover, even if it is injected into the human bloodstream, it has no biological activity.

Largely as a result of bullying by several members of Congress, the F.D.A.s review of rbST took nine years, while the evaluation of an almost identical product for injection into growth hormone-deficient children had taken a mere 18 months.

Cynical activists have unfairly stigmatized a scientifically proven product that has consistently delivered economic and environmental benefits to dairy farmers and consumers. In a more rational world, they would embrace and enlightened consumers would demand milk with a label that boasted, A Proud Product of rbST-Supplemented Cows.

Henry I. Miller, a doctor and fellow at the Hoover Institution, headed the Food and Drug Administrations Office of Biotechnology from 1989 to 1993. He is the co-author, most recently, of The Frankenfood Myth.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Donald L. Yorlets, VMD
P.O. Box 205
4698 York Road
New Oxford, PA 17350

Recently South Central Pennsylvania has been plastered with new billboards touting the virtues of milk from Rutter’s Dairy. It is billed as “FREE OF ARTIFICIAL HORMONES” and “FREE OF ARTIFICIAL GROWTH HORMONES” on their milk jug labels.

I have been a large-animal veterinarian for 26 years and have been involved in the dairy industry all of my life. So, maybe I can help clarify what all this hormone talk is about. Was the “old milk” unsafe? Is the “new milk” really safer?

Hormones are naturally occurring compounds produced by all plants and animals (including humans) to regulate specific bodily functions. Take insulin for example, this is a protein hormone that helps our bodies utilize glucose (blood sugar)—without this hormone you will die. Our bodies produce and depend on hundreds and hundreds of hormones for us to live. Hormones are not limited to the animal kingdom; plants also depend on hormones to grow and develop.

So all of our food naturally contains many hormones, and consuming them is unavoidable. So now knowing that all food has many hormones, primarily protein based, what effect do they have on us? Well, protein hormones are simply broken down and digested to furnish our bodies with essential amino acids.

Let me first state that I have no concerns about the wholesomeness and safety of Rutter’s Milk or any other brand. My family has and will continue to buy Rutter’s Milk and know it is safe. My contention is that Rutter’s advertising is now very confusing and extremely misleading. So why is “no artificial hormones” coming up now?

Well in 1994 the FDA approved a synthetic compound named bovine somatotropin or rbST for short, it is also called bovine growth hormone (bGH). The “r” means that it was produced synthetically. This is a bio-identical hormone, — an exact copy of nature’s own bST, a protein hormone that is present in all cows and all cow’s milk in the exact same manner that human growth hormone (hGH) is present in human breast milk! Let me emphasize that BST, natural or synthetic is not a steroid and should not be confused with steroids.

So how is this used? Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that supplementing cows with bST would result in about a 10 percent increase in milk production. It wasn’t until recently that technology allowed for commercial manufacturing of bST. Since 1994 bST has been safely used by dairy producers to increase milk production. This product has been more thoroughly studied and evaluated than any other animal product. The FDA thoroughly examined its human safety, and during 12 years of use, I have never seen any harm to cows, which receive a simple injection every two weeks.

The increased milk production allows dairy farmers to produce our milk with fewer cows. This lowers production cost for dairy farmers and is better for the environment by reducing animal waste and land under production. These are all positive consequences of the use of rbST. Rutter’s however, joining a trend started by some national milk companies, has told its dairymen to stop using this safe and FDA-approved product. Long before Rutter’s joined the trend, milk companies found they could charge more for this product by convincing the unknowing consumer that this “new milk” is better and safer. The FDA has categorically stated that there is no difference between milk. All milk contains bST, and milk from treated cows contains no more bST than any other. In fact no test can distinguish between them.

Rutter’s advertisement would lead you to believe that artificial hormones are being added to the milk. The facts are that a bio-identical hormone was given to the cow to supplement her own natural levels of bST to increase her production.

Shame on Rutter’s. They are simply doing this for economic gain and not for food safety reasons. In addition to playing on people’s fears to hype their own milk, Rutter’s is not even compensating its dairymen for their increased cost as a result of losing this product.

Consumers need to know these facts: All milk contains bST, rbST is bio-identical to natural bST, all foods contain hormones, and use of rbST is good for the environment and helps local farmers. Rutter’s advertising that rbST is ”banned” in Canada and the European Union would lead you to believe that rbST milk is not safe. The reality is that while Canada and the European Union have not approved bST, it is not “banned”. Both of these countries have concluded that rbST milk is absolutely safe and they freely accept milk imports from countries using rbST. The use of bST in these countries is not approved for socio-economical reasons not for food safety reasons! Buying into the scare campaign of Rutter’s and other big dairy companies does nothing but take money out of your pocket and put it into theirs.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Henry I. Miller
New York Times - June 29, 2007

Stanford, Calif. - MILK occupies a special place in our lives and language. It has been dubbed natures most perfect food, and we speak sentimentally of the land of milk and honey and the milk of human kindness.

But things are turning sour for consumers of milk. The average price of a gallon of milk nationwide is up 37 cents since January, to $3.47. Strong demand and limited ability to increase production quickly are expected to increase prices more, and experts have speculated that the price per gallon could reach a record $5 by years end. High feed costs associated with the ramping up of American corn-based ethanol production are making it difficult to produce more milk.

Worldwide, prices are also at historically high levels. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organizations price index of traded dairy products has risen 46 percent since last November.

One way to ease the shortage and lower the prices is to take greater advantage of a proven 13-year-old biological technology that stimulates milk production in dairy cows a protein called recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST), or bovine growth hormone. The protein, produced naturally by a cows pituitary, is one of the substances that control its milk production. It can be made in large quantities with gene-splicing (recombinant DNA) techniques. The gene-spliced and natural versions are identical.

Bad-faith efforts by biotechnology opponents to portray rbST as untested or harmful, and to discourage its use, keep society from taking full advantage of a safe and useful product. The opponents limited success is keeping the price of milk unnecessarily high.

When rbST is injected into cows, their digestive systems become more efficient at converting feed to milk. It induces the average cow, which produces about eight gallons of milk each day, to make nearly a gallon more. More feed, water, barn space and grazing land are devoted to milk production, rather than other aspects of bovine metabolism, so that you get seven cows worth of milk from six.

This may not seem like a big deal, but when applied widely the effects are profound. For every million cows treated with rbST each year, 6.6 billion gallons of water (enough to supply 26,000 homes) are conserved, according to Monsanto, which makes rbST. With much of the nation enduring a drought and many cities in the West experiencing water shortages, this is a significant benefit.

The amount of animal feed consumed each year by those million rbST-supplemented cows is reduced by more than three billion pounds. This helps to keep the lid on corn prices, even as much of the nations corn harvest is diverted to producing ethanol for cars. And the amount of land required to raise the cattle and grow their food is reduced by more than 417 square miles.

At the same time, more than 5.5 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel (enough to power 8,800 homes) are saved, greenhouse gas emissions are lowered by 30,000 metric tons (because fewer cows means less methane produced by bovine intestinal tracts), and manure production is decreased by about 3.6 million tons, reducing the chances of runoff getting into waterways and groundwater.

Comprehensive studies by academics and government regulatory agencies around the world have found no differences in the composition of milk or meat from rbST-supplemented cows.

And consumers are apparently happy to drink milk from supplemented cows, in spite of efforts by biotechnology opponents to bamboozle milk processors and retailers into believing that consumers don’t want it. In various surveys to ascertain the factors that influence consumers milk purchasing decisions, the predominant considerations have been: price (80 percent to 99 percent), freshness (60 percent to 97 percent), brand loyalty (30 percent to 60 percent) and a claim of organic (1 percent to 4 percent). Only the organic claim is even remotely related to rbST supplementation. Unless prompted, the consumers surveyed didn’t mention rbST as a concern.

Some milk suppliers and food stores have increased the price of milk labeled rbST-free, even though it is indistinguishable from supplemented milk, and offer only this more expensive option, pre-empting consumers ability to choose on the basis of price.

Activists purely speculative concerns about rbST ranging from the destruction of small family farms to the risk of cancer have proven baseless. Before approval by the Food and Drug Administration, rbST underwent the longest and most comprehensive regulatory review of any veterinary product in history. Three years before the F.D.A. approved the marketing of milk from supplemented cows, its scientists, in an article published in the journal Science, summarized more than 120 studies showing that rbST poses no risk to human health.

Their conclusion was affirmed over the next several years by additional scientific reviews conducted by the National Institutes of Health, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the drug-regulatory agencies of Britain, Canada and the European Union, and by an issues audit done by the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general. These reviews noted that traces of bST are found in milk from all cows, supplemented or not. They also pointed out that, like other proteins, rbST is digested in the humangut. Moreover, even if it is injected into the human bloodstream, it has no biological activity.

Largely as a result of bullying by several members of Congress, the F.D.A.s review of rbST took nine years, while the evaluation of an almost identical product for injection into growth hormone-deficient children had taken a mere 18 months.

Cynical activists have unfairly stigmatized a scientifically proven product that has consistently delivered economic and environmental benefits to dairy farmers and consumers. In a more rational world, they would embrace and enlightened consumers would demand milk with a label that boasted, A Proud Product of rbST-Supplemented Cows.

Henry I. Miller, a doctor and fellow at the Hoover Institution, headed the Food and Drug Administrations Office of Biotechnology from 1989 to 1993. He is the co-author, most recently, of The Frankenfood Myth.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Donald L. Yorlets, VMD
P.O. Box 205
4698 York Road
New Oxford, PA 17350

Recently South Central Pennsylvania has been plastered with new billboards touting the virtues of milk from Rutter’s Dairy. It is billed as “FREE OF ARTIFICIAL HORMONES” and “FREE OF ARTIFICIAL GROWTH HORMONES” on their milk jug labels.

I have been a large-animal veterinarian for 26 years and have been involved in the dairy industry all of my life. So, maybe I can help clarify what all this hormone talk is about. Was the “old milk” unsafe? Is the “new milk” really safer?

Hormones are naturally occurring compounds produced by all plants and animals (including humans) to regulate specific bodily functions. Take insulin for example, this is a protein hormone that helps our bodies utilize glucose (blood sugar)—without this hormone you will die. Our bodies produce and depend on hundreds and hundreds of hormones for us to live. Hormones are not limited to the animal kingdom; plants also depend on hormones to grow and develop.

So all of our food naturally contains many hormones, and consuming them is unavoidable. So now knowing that all food has many hormones, primarily protein based, what effect do they have on us? Well, protein hormones are simply broken down and digested to furnish our bodies with essential amino acids.

Let me first state that I have no concerns about the wholesomeness and safety of Rutter’s Milk or any other brand. My family has and will continue to buy Rutter’s Milk and know it is safe. My contention is that Rutter’s advertising is now very confusing and extremely misleading. So why is “no artificial hormones” coming up now?

Well in 1994 the FDA approved a synthetic compound named bovine somatotropin or rbST for short, it is also called bovine growth hormone (bGH). The “r” means that it was produced synthetically. This is a bio-identical hormone, — an exact copy of nature’s own bST, a protein hormone that is present in all cows and all cow’s milk in the exact same manner that human growth hormone (hGH) is present in human breast milk! Let me emphasize that BST, natural or synthetic is not a steroid and should not be confused with steroids.

So how is this used? Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that supplementing cows with bST would result in about a 10 percent increase in milk production. It wasn’t until recently that technology allowed for commercial manufacturing of bST. Since 1994 bST has been safely used by dairy producers to increase milk production. This product has been more thoroughly studied and evaluated than any other animal product. The FDA thoroughly examined its human safety, and during 12 years of use, I have never seen any harm to cows, which receive a simple injection every two weeks.

The increased milk production allows dairy farmers to produce our milk with fewer cows. This lowers production cost for dairy farmers and is better for the environment by reducing animal waste and land under production. These are all positive consequences of the use of rbST. Rutter’s however, joining a trend started by some national milk companies, has told its dairymen to stop using this safe and FDA-approved product. Long before Rutter’s joined the trend, milk companies found they could charge more for this product by convincing the unknowing consumer that this “new milk” is better and safer. The FDA has categorically stated that there is no difference between milk. All milk contains bST, and milk from treated cows contains no more bST than any other. In fact no test can distinguish between them.

Rutter’s advertisement would lead you to believe that artificial hormones are being added to the milk. The facts are that a bio-identical hormone was given to the cow to supplement her own natural levels of bST to increase her production.

Shame on Rutter’s. They are simply doing this for economic gain and not for food safety reasons. In addition to playing on people’s fears to hype their own milk, Rutter’s is not even compensating its dairymen for their increased cost as a result of losing this product.

Consumers need to know these facts: All milk contains bST, rbST is bio-identical to natural bST, all foods contain hormones, and use of rbST is good for the environment and helps local farmers. Rutter’s advertising that rbST is ”banned” in Canada and the European Union would lead you to believe that rbST milk is not safe. The reality is that while Canada and the European Union have not approved bST, it is not “banned”. Both of these countries have concluded that rbST milk is absolutely safe and they freely accept milk imports from countries using rbST. The use of bST in these countries is not approved for socio-economical reasons not for food safety reasons! Buying into the scare campaign of Rutter’s and other big dairy companies does nothing but take money out of your pocket and put it into theirs.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Henry I. Miller
New York Times - June 29, 2007

Stanford, Calif. - MILK occupies a special place in our lives and language. It has been dubbed natures most perfect food, and we speak sentimentally of the land of milk and honey and the milk of human kindness.

But things are turning sour for consumers of milk. The average price of a gallon of milk nationwide is up 37 cents since January, to $3.47. Strong demand and limited ability to increase production quickly are expected to increase prices more, and experts have speculated that the price per gallon could reach a record $5 by years end. High feed costs associated with the ramping up of American corn-based ethanol production are making it difficult to produce more milk.

Worldwide, prices are also at historically high levels. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organizations price index of traded dairy products has risen 46 percent since last November.

One way to ease the shortage and lower the prices is to take greater advantage of a proven 13-year-old biological technology that stimulates milk production in dairy cows a protein called recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST), or bovine growth hormone. The protein, produced naturally by a cows pituitary, is one of the substances that control its milk production. It can be made in large quantities with gene-splicing (recombinant DNA) techniques. The gene-spliced and natural versions are identical.

Bad-faith efforts by biotechnology opponents to portray rbST as untested or harmful, and to discourage its use, keep society from taking full advantage of a safe and useful product. The opponents limited success is keeping the price of milk unnecessarily high.

When rbST is injected into cows, their digestive systems become more efficient at converting feed to milk. It induces the average cow, which produces about eight gallons of milk each day, to make nearly a gallon more. More feed, water, barn space and grazing land are devoted to milk production, rather than other aspects of bovine metabolism, so that you get seven cows worth of milk from six.

This may not seem like a big deal, but when applied widely the effects are profound. For every million cows treated with rbST each year, 6.6 billion gallons of water (enough to supply 26,000 homes) are conserved, according to Monsanto, which makes rbST. With much of the nation enduring a drought and many cities in the West experiencing water shortages, this is a significant benefit.

The amount of animal feed consumed each year by those million rbST-supplemented cows is reduced by more than three billion pounds. This helps to keep the lid on corn prices, even as much of the nations corn harvest is diverted to producing ethanol for cars. And the amount of land required to raise the cattle and grow their food is reduced by more than 417 square miles.

At the same time, more than 5.5 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel (enough to power 8,800 homes) are saved, greenhouse gas emissions are lowered by 30,000 metric tons (because fewer cows means less methane produced by bovine intestinal tracts), and manure production is decreased by about 3.6 million tons, reducing the chances of runoff getting into waterways and groundwater.

Comprehensive studies by academics and government regulatory agencies around the world have found no differences in the composition of milk or meat from rbST-supplemented cows.

And consumers are apparently happy to drink milk from supplemented cows, in spite of efforts by biotechnology opponents to bamboozle milk processors and retailers into believing that consumers don’t want it. In various surveys to ascertain the factors that influence consumers milk purchasing decisions, the predominant considerations have been: price (80 percent to 99 percent), freshness (60 percent to 97 percent), brand loyalty (30 percent to 60 percent) and a claim of organic (1 percent to 4 percent). Only the organic claim is even remotely related to rbST supplementation. Unless prompted, the consumers surveyed didn’t mention rbST as a concern.

Some milk suppliers and food stores have increased the price of milk labeled rbST-free, even though it is indistinguishable from supplemented milk, and offer only this more expensive option, pre-empting consumers ability to choose on the basis of price.

Activists purely speculative concerns about rbST ranging from the destruction of small family farms to the risk of cancer have proven baseless. Before approval by the Food and Drug Administration, rbST underwent the longest and most comprehensive regulatory review of any veterinary product in history. Three years before the F.D.A. approved the marketing of milk from supplemented cows, its scientists, in an article published in the journal Science, summarized more than 120 studies showing that rbST poses no risk to human health.

Their conclusion was affirmed over the next several years by additional scientific reviews conducted by the National Institutes of Health, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the drug-regulatory agencies of Britain, Canada and the European Union, and by an issues audit done by the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general. These reviews noted that traces of bST are found in milk from all cows, supplemented or not. They also pointed out that, like other proteins, rbST is digested in the human gut. Moreover, even if it is injected into the human bloodstream, it has no biological activity.

Largely as a result of bullying by several members of Congress, the F.D.A.s review of rbST took nine years, while the evaluation of an almost identical product for injection into growth hormone-deficient children had taken a mere 18 months.

Cynical activists have unfairly stigmatized a scientifically proven product that has consistently delivered economic and environmental benefits to dairy farmers and consumers. In a more rational world, they would embrace and enlightened consumers would demand milk with a label that boasted, A Proud Product of rbST-Supplemented Cows.

Henry I. Miller, a doctor and fellow at the Hoover Institution, headed the Food and Drug Administrations Office of Biotechnology from 1989 to 1993. He is the co-author, most recently, of The Frankenfood Myth.

Permalink

Comments are closed.