Cancéropôle Lyon Rhône-Alpes

Terry Etherton

Misinformation abounds in the public discussion about the need for and the importance of agricultural biotechnologies. Much of this has been propagated by anti-biotech activist groups in an attempt to sway public opinion in order to create an anti-biotechnology viewpoint. One approach used to scare consumers has been marketing campaigns that denounce hormones like rbST in milk as being dangerous. Perceptions get twisted. Instead of being concerned about the tiger, some jump at stripes. A treacherous path forward.

What gets lost in this maelstrom of misinformation is that we are on the leading edge of the greatest science ever conducted in the history of humankind. Remarkable technologies, both agricultural and medical biotechnologies. Ever notice that the public attack on ag biotechnology is rarely seen in the biomedical community, though they uses virtually the same scientific methodologies? Ever wonder why?

There are no headlines raging about the dangers of using recombinant insulin (a protein hormone) for individuals with diabetes. I have never read about a concern of parents with short stature children. For many of these children, the treatment is administration of recombinant human somatotropin (rhST), a first cousin of rbST. Use of rhST helps these children get closer to their projected adult height. Parents are elated!

Interesting that there are no public concerns about many recombinant proteins that are valuable human pharmaceuticals. Actually, it’s not puzzling. They save lives!

Amazing isn’t it! What drives this behavior that attacks one hormone like rbST, when no danger or increased risk exists?

There are far more pressing societal issues to take on than to spend the time and energy in the public battle about food biotechnologies. Whether to purchase organic, rbST-free or conventional milk. It is all the same! Why the angst? I don’t understand it all.

In the rbST-free milk rheoretic, alleged dangers are presented about a protein hormone that is in all milk, and is present in vanishingly small quantities. About 50 picograms (i.e., 0.000000000050 grams)! Moreover, rbST is not biologically active in humans. This is nothing other than a contrived uproar that some activists push, and some consumers believe!

I think a lot about how consumers form their purchase decisions, and what drives their behavior to adopt philosophical views of the greater world. Why do some consumers drink raw milk? This is a great illustration of dancing with tigers … a real dangerous approach for food lifestyle. In the March 2, 2007 issue of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) published by the Centers for Disease Control, an E. coli O157:H7 infection was associated with consumption of raw, unpasteurized milk. Took place in the state of Washington. Take a look at the article, and wonder why some folks dance with tigers. The tiger analogy of this is that E. coli O157:H7 causes an estimated 73,000 illnesses and 61 deaths annually in the United States (see March 2, 2007 MMWR).

As discussed in the MMWR article, while many consumers are aware that raw milk can contain pathogens, some believe that it has potential benefits. Unfortunately, the validity of any health or nutritional benefits from consuming raw milk has not been proven scientifically. What has been well documented for over a 100 years is that raw milk is a cause of enteric infections. Pathogens that infect humans, including E. coli O157:H7, are shed in the feces of cows and can contaminate milk during the milking process. Pasteurization decreases the number of pathogenic organisms, prevents transmission of pathogens, and has been determined to improve the safety of raw milk more than other measures, including certification of raw milk. The take-home message: consumers should NOT drink raw milk.

If you want to worry about what you are eating, you would be better off fretting over whether the FDA has enough inspectors on the job at meat plants and other food processing plants to took for salmonella and E. coli 0157:H7 than whether your milk has rbST in it.

For activists looking for something meaningful to do beyond their misguided and untruthful attacks on rbST, how about developing educational programs to convince consumers of raw milk to NOT do this? That would be a noble contribution.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Terry Etherton

Anti-biotech activists continue their drum beat of: danger, danger, don’t drink milk because it has hormones, hormones….you will get cancer! The propaganda they have shoveled out linking milk insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I - a naturally occurring protein hormone found in ALL milk) to an increased risk of cancer is an astonishing piece of nonsense. However, no problem - activist groups have never concerned themselves about basing their scare tactics on scientific facts. It saves time to just make it up!

Activist Story Telling about Milk IGF-I and Cancer

A short version of the propaganda put out by anti-biotech activist groups is that treatment of cows with recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) increases milk levels of IGF-I. This is followed by information conveying that too much IGF-I in humans is associated with increased rates of colon, breast and prostate cancer. Another allegation these groups put forth is that definitive studies demonstrating the lack of absorption of milk rbST or IGF-I following oral administration have not been conducted. This is intended to convey the concept that the intact IGF-I molecule, which would be biologically active in humans, just might be absorbed into the circulation. The obvious message is that if you drink milk you will absorb IGF-I into your circulation and increase risk of cancer.

Now, to the truth!

The Science Evidence Base about Milk IGF-I and Cancer

Cows’ milk contains many hormones, including somatotropin (ST) and IGF-I. This is normal. Human milk contains hormones, and colostrum is loaded with hormones, both protein and steroid. The amount of IGF-I in cow’s milk is a fraction of total protein found in milk. It represents one-tenth of one millionth of total milk protein. Negligible quantities of milk IGF-I are absorbed by the human gut as intact proteins. To have any biological activity in humans, IGF-I has to be absorbed intact. This doesn’t happen to any significant extent; however, even if this occurred it would not pose a problem. Why? The amount of IGF-I in milk pales compared to the quantity humans make daily.

The amount of IGF-I secreted daily in the saliva and from digestive tract secretions in humans is equivalent to the amount of IGF-I found in 95 quarts of milk! Remarkable, isn’t it? The activists don’t talk about this because it defeats their argument. If they are concerned about IGF-I in milk being linked to cancer, then why are they NOT concerned about IGF-I that we humans make and secrete? On a quantitative basis, levels of milk IGF-I are a “drop in the bucket” compared to that produced daily in saliva and the digestive tract of humans.

Where’s All the Money Going?

So, the public discussion goes about the safety of rbST. Activists on one side and the truth-based science, on the other.

Activists don’t want to solve the problem, to find a middle ground. They need us in animal agriculture because they can’t stir up the pot unless there are targets and objectives to attack. They promote their “cause” while falsely attacking animal agriculture. To be relevant, they have to keep the business of activism going. Attacks bring visibility to their effort, and, oh yes, donations. Thus, another part of the smoke and mirrors of anti-ag activist attacks is revealed. There are enormous sums of money being collected by the activist’s groups that attack agriculture and biotechnology. Wonder what they do with all the money…don’t suppose some is being used for lavish salaries - wouldn’t that be interesting?

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Chad Dechow
Assistant Professor of Dairy Cattle Genetics
Department of Dairy and Animal Science
The Pennsylvania State University

The evil “Big Oil” companies are under threat of legislation and Congressional investigation for profiteering because they dare to make an entire 9 to 10 pennies per gallon of gasoline. Imagine the fun Congress could have with the folks selling rbST-free milk. For a mere dollar or two extra, you can now buy a gallon of milk from cows not treated with rbST. Only don’t pretend you’re helping out the hard working farmers who milk non rbST-treated cows. They will receive little or none of that premium.

Dairy producers are obviously not happy. The consumer-farmer price disparity is easy to spot with rbST-free milk, but this disparity is simply a time condensed and dramatic example of the long-term trend. USDA keeps track of trends in farm and consumer prices and the appalling rbST-free milk marketing gimmicks motivated me to dig up the numbers. Through the early 1980’s, farmers typically received 50% of the retail dollar. Today’s farmer will only pull in around 30% of the retail dollar.

Genetics, biotechnology, and evolving management practices have helped make our dairy farms more efficient, but that efficiency is not being passed to consumers. Retail prices have gone up at essentially the rate of inflation while the price paid to farmers has remained stagnant. The farm-to-retail price spread increased 241% from 1983 to 2005 (see Figure 1). Many dairy producers have lost the farm they’ve poured their life into because they could no longer pay their bills in such an environment. Cows lose in this deal as well. The constant drive toward greater farm efficiency makes proper stewardship of the creatures we care for that much more difficult.

Lower consumer prices for dairy products was one of the promises technologies like rbST were to deliver. So how has the consumer made out after approval of rbST? The retail price of milk increased 2.5% annually in the decade before rbST was approved and 3.0% in the decade after. That’s 0.5% higher than the rate of inflation in the later decade by the way. Promises that consumers would benefit from rbST use, in the form of lower milk price, have simply not been realized. The gain in farm efficiency is apparently being absorbed entirely by the folks in between farm and consumer. I find it rather demoralizing to think that genetic improvement and biotechnologies appear to help neither farm nor consumer. Maybe there’s a silver lining in this rbST-free cloud. It might just make folks sit up and question where our food dollars end up.

Figure 1. Source: Economic Research Service - USDA. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodPriceSpreads/basket/

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Terry Etherton

Misinformation abounds in the public discussion about the need for and the importance of agricultural biotechnologies. Much of this has been propagated by anti-biotech activist groups in an attempt to sway public opinion in order to create an anti-biotechnology viewpoint. One approach used to scare consumers has been marketing campaigns that denounce hormones like rbST in milk as being dangerous. Perceptions get twisted. Instead of being concerned about the tiger, some jump at stripes. A treacherous path forward.

What gets lost in this maelstrom of misinformation is that we are on the leading edge of the greatest science ever conducted in the history of humankind. Remarkable technologies, both agricultural and medical biotechnologies. Ever notice that the public attack on ag biotechnology is rarely seen in the biomedical community, though they uses virtually the same scientific methodologies? Ever wonder why?

There are no headlines raging about the dangers of using recombinant insulin (a protein hormone) for individuals with diabetes. I have never read about a concern of parents with short stature children. Formany of these children, the treatment is administration of recombinant human somatotropin (rhST), a first cousin of rbST. Use of rhST helps these children get closer to their projected adult height. Parents are elated!

Interesting that there are no public concerns about many recombinant proteins that are valuable human pharmaceuticals. Actually, it’s not puzzling. They save lives!

Amazing isn’t it! What drives this behavior that attacks one hormone like rbST, when no danger or increased risk exists?

There are far more pressing societal issues to take on than to spend the time and energy in the public battle about food biotechnologies. Whether to purchase organic, rbST-free or conventional milk. It is all the same! Why the angst? I don’t understand it all.

In the rbST-free milk rheoretic, alleged dangers are presented about a protein hormone that is in all milk, and is present in vanishingly small quantities. About 50 picograms (i.e., 0.000000000050 grams)! Moreover, rbST is not biologically active in humans. This is nothing other than a contrived uproar that some activists push, and some consumers believe!

I think a lot about how consumers form their purchase decisions, and what drives their behavior to adopt philosophical views of the greater world. Why do some consumers drink raw milk? This is a great illustration of dancing with tigers … a real dangerous approach for food lifestyle. In the March 2, 2007 issue of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) published by the Centers for Disease Control, an E. coli O157:H7 infection was associated with consumption of raw, unpasteurized milk. Took place in the state of Washington. Take a look at the article, and wonder why some folks dance with tigers. The tiger analogy of this is that E. coli O157:H7 causes an estimated 73,000 illnesses and 61 deaths annually in the United States (see March 2, 2007 MMWR).

As discussed in the MMWR article, while many consumers are aware that raw milk can contain pathogens, some believe that it has potential benefits. Unfortunately, the validity of any health or nutritional benefits from consuming raw milk has not been proven scientifically. What has been well documented for over a 100 years is that raw milk is a cause of enteric infections. Pathogens that infect humans, including E. coli O157:H7, are shed in the feces of cows and can contaminate milk during the milking process. Pasteurization decreases the number of pathogenic organisms, prevents transmission of pathogens, and has been determined to improve the safety of raw milk more than other measures, including certification of raw milk. The take-home message: consumers should NOT drink raw milk.

If you want to worry about what you are eating, you would be better off fretting over whether the FDA has enough inspectors on the job at meat plants and other food processing plants to took for salmonella and E. coli 0157:H7 than whether your milk has rbST in it.

For activists looking for something meaningful to do beyond their misguided and untruthful attacks on rbST, how about developing educational programs to convince consumers of raw milk to NOT do this? That would be a noble contribution.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Terry Etherton

Anti-biotech activists continue their drum beat of: danger, danger, don’t drink milk because it has hormones, hormones….you will get cancer! The propaganda they have shoveled out linking milk insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I - a naturally occurring protein hormone found in ALL milk) to an increased risk of cancer is an astonishing piece of nonsense. However, no problem - activist groups have never concerned themselves about basing their scare tactics on scientific facts. It saves time to just make it up!

Activist Story Telling about Milk IGF-I and Cancer

A short version of the propaganda put out by anti-biotech activist groups is that treatment of cows with recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) increases milk levels of IGF-I. This is followed by information conveying that too much IGF-I in humans is associated with increased rates of colon, breast and prostate cancer. Another allegation these groups put forth is that definitive studies demonstrating the lack of absorption of milk rbST or IGF-I following oral administration have not been conducted. This is intended to convey the concept that the intact IGF-I molecule, which would be biologically active in humans, just might be absorbed into the circulation. The obvious message is that if you drink milk you will absorb IGF-I into your circulation and increase risk of cancer.

Now, to the truth!

The Science Evidence Base about Milk IGF-I and Cancer

Cows’ milk contains many hormones, including somatotropin (ST) and IGF-I. This is normal. Human milk contains hormones, and colostrum is loaded with hormones, both protein and steroid. The amount of IGF-I in cow’s milk is a fraction of total protein found in milk. It represents one-tenth of one millionth of total milk protein. Negligible quantities of milk IGF-I are absorbed by the human gut as intact proteins. To have any biological activity in humans, IGF-I has to be absorbed intact. This doesn’t happen to any significant extent; however, even if this occurred it would not pose a problem. Why? The amount of IGF-I in milk pales compared to the quantity humans make daily.

The amount of IGF-I secreted daily in the saliva and from digestive tract secretions in humans is equivalent to the amount of IGF-I found in 95 quarts of milk! Remarkable, isn’t it? The activists don’t talk about this because it defeats their argument. If they are concerned about IGF-I in milk being linked to cancer, then why are they NOT concerned about IGF-I that we humans make and secrete? On a quantitative basis, levels of milk IGF-I are a “drop in the bucket” compared to that produced daily in saliva and the digestive tract of humans.

Where’s All the Money Going?

So, the public discussion goes about the safety of rbST. Activists on one side and the truth-based science, on the other.

Activists don’t want to solve the problem, to find a middle ground. They need us in animal agriculture because they can’t stir up the pot unless there are targets and objectives to attack. They promote their “cause” while falsely attacking animal agriculture. To be relevant, they have to keep the business of activism going. Attacks bring visibility to their effort, and, oh yes, donations. Thus, another part of the smoke and mirrors of anti-ag activist attacks is revealed. There are enormous sums of money being collected by the activist’s groups that attack agriculture and biotechnology. Wonder what they do with all the money…don’t suppose some is being used for lavish salaries - wouldn’t that be interesting?

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Chad Dechow
Assistant Professor of Dairy Cattle Genetics
Department of Dairy and Animal Science
The Pennsylvania State University

The evil “Big Oil” companies are under threat of legislation and Congressional investigation for profiteering because they dare to make an entire 9 to 10 pennies per gallon of gasoline. Imagine the fun Congress could have with the folks selling rbST-free milk. For a mere dollar or two extra, you can now buy a gallon of milk from cows not treated with rbST. Only don’t pretend you’re helping out the hard working farmers who milk non rbST-treated cows. They will receive little or none of that premium.

Dairy producers are obviously not happy. The consumer-farmer price disparity is easy to spot with rbST-free milk, but this disparity is simply a time condensed and dramatic example of the long-term trend. USDA keeps track of trends in farm and consumer prices and the appalling rbST-free milk marketing gimmicks motivated me to dig up the numbers. Through the early 1980’s, farmers typically received 50% of the retail dollar. Today’s farmer will only pull in around 30% of the retail dollar.

Genetics, biotechnology, and evolving management practices have helped make our dairy farms more efficient, but that efficiency is not being passed to consumers. Retail prices have gone up at essentially the rate of inflation while the price paid to farmers has remained stagnant. The farm-to-retail price spread increased 241% from 1983 to 2005 (see Figure 1). Many dairy producers have lost the farm they’ve poured their life into because they could no longer pay their bills in such an environment. Cows lose in this deal as well. The constant drive toward greater farm efficiency makes proper stewardship of the creatures we care for that much more difficult.

Lower consumer prices for dairy products was one of the promises technologies like rbST were to deliver. So how has the consumer made out after approval of rbST? The retail price of milk increased 2.5% annually in the decade before rbST was approved and 3.0% in the decade after. That’s 0.5% higher than the rate of inflation in the later decade by the way. Promises that consumers would benefit from rbST use, in the form of lower milk price, have simply not been realized. The gain in farm efficiency is apparently being absorbed entirely by the folks in between farm and consumer. I find it rather demoralizing to think that genetic improvement and biotechnologies appear to help neither farm nor consumer. Maybe there’s a silver lining in this rbST-free cloud. It might just make folks sit up and question where our food dollars end up.

Figure 1. Source: Economic Research Service - USDA. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodPriceSpreads/basket/

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Terry Etherton

Misinformation abounds in the public discussion about the need for and the importance of agricultural biotechnologies. Much of this has been propagated by anti-biotech activist groups in an attempt to sway public opinion in order to create an anti-biotechnology viewpoint. One approach used to scare consumers has been marketing campaigns that denounce hormones like rbST in milk as being dangerous. Perceptions get twisted. Instead of being concerned about the tiger, some jump at stripes. A treacherous path forward.

What gets lost in this maelstrom of misinformation is that we are on the leading edge of the greatest science ever conducted in the history of humankind. Remarkable technologies, both agricultural and medical biotechnologies. Ever notice that the public attack on ag biotechnology is rarely seen in the biomedical community, though they uses virtually the same scientific methodologies? Ever wonder why?

There are no headlines raging about the dangers of using recombinant insulin (a protein hormone) for individuals with diabetes. I have never read about a concern of parents with short stature children. For many of these children, the treatment is administration of recombinant human somatotropin (rhST), a first cousin of rbST. Use of rhST helps these children get closer to their projected adult height. Parents are elated!

Interesting that there are no public concerns about many recombinant proteins that are valuable human pharmaceuticals. Actually, it’s not puzzling. They save lives!

Amazing isn’t it! What drives this behavior that attacks one hormone like rbST, when no danger or increased risk exists?

There are far more pressing societal issues to take on than to spend the time and energy in the public battle about food biotechnologies. Whether to purchase organic, rbST-free or conventional milk. It is all the same! Why the angst? I don’t understand it all.

In the rbST-free milk rheoretic, alleged dangers are presented about a protein hormone that is in all milk, and is present in vanishingly small quantities. About 50 picograms (i.e., 0.000000000050 grams)! Moreover, rbST is not biologically active in humans. This is nothing other than a contrived uproar that some activists push, and some consumers believe!

I think a lot about how consumers form their purchase decisions, and what drives their behavior to adopt philosophical views of the greater world. Why do some consumers drink raw milk? This is a great illustration of dancing with tigers … a real dangerous approach for food lifestyle. In the March 2, 2007 issue of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) published by the Centers for Disease Control, an E. coli O157:H7 infection was associated with consumption of raw, unpasteurized milk. Took place in the state of Washington. Take a look at the article, and wonder why some folks dance with tigers. The tiger analogy of this is that E. coli O157:H7 causes an estimated 73,000 illnesses and 61 deaths annually in the United States (see March 2, 2007 MMWR).

As discussed in the MMWR article, while many consumers are aware that raw milk can contain pathogens, some believe that it has potential benefits. Unfortunately, the validity of any health or nutritional benefits from consuming raw milk has not been proven scientifically. What has been well documented for over a 100 years is that raw milk is a cause of enteric infections. Pathogens that infect humans, including E. coli O157:H7, are shed in the feces of cows and can contaminate milk during the milking process. Pasteurization decreases the number of pathogenic organisms, prevents transmission of pathogens, and has been determined to improve the safety of raw milk more than other measures, including certification of raw milk. The take-home message: consumers should NOT drink raw milk.

If you want to worry about what you are eating, you would be better off fretting over whether the FDA has enough inspectors on the job at meat plants and other food processing plants to took for salmonella and E. coli 0157:H7 than whether your milk has rbST in it.

For activists looking for something meaningful to do beyond their misguided and untruthful attacks on rbST, how about developing educational programs to convince consumers of raw milk to NOT do this? That would be a noble contribution.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Terry Etherton

Anti-biotech activists continue their drum beat of: danger, danger, don’t drink milk because it has hormones, hormones….you will get cancer! The propaganda they have shoveled out linking milk insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I - a naturally occurring protein hormone found in ALL milk) to an increased risk of cancer is an astonishing piece of nonsense. However, no problem - activist groups have never concerned themselves about basing their scare tactics on scientific facts. It saves time to just make it up!

Activist Story Telling about Milk IGF-I and Cancer

A short version of the propaganda put out by anti-biotech activist groups is that treatment of cows with recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) increases milk levels of IGF-I. This is followed by information conveying that too much IGF-I in humans is associated with increased rates of colon, breast and prostate cancer. Another allegation these groups put forth is that definitive studies demonstrating the lack of absorption of milk rbST or IGF-I following oral administration have not been conducted. This is intended to convey the concept that the intact IGF-I molecule, which would be biologically active in humans, just might be absorbed into the circulation. The obvious message is that if you drink milk you will absorb IGF-I into your circulation and increase risk of cancer.

Now, to the truth!

The Science Evidence Base about Milk IGF-I and Cancer

Cows’ milk contains many hormones, including somatotropin (ST) and IGF-I. This is normal. Human milk contains hormones, and colostrum is loaded with hormones, both protein and steroid. The amount of IGF-I in cow’s milk is a fraction of total protein found in milk. It represents one-tenth of one millionth of total milk protein. Negligible quantities of milk IGF-I are absorbed by the human gut as intact proteins. To have any biological activity in humans, IGF-I has to be absorbed intact. This doesn’t happen to any significant extent; however, even if this occurred it would not pose a problem. Why? The amount of IGF-I in milk pales compared to the quantity humans make daily.

The amount of IGF-I secreted daily in the saliva and from digestive tract secretions in humans is equivalent to the amount of IGF-I found in 95 quarts of milk! Remarkable, isn’t it? The activists don’t talk about this because it defeats their argument. If they are concerned about IGF-I in milk being linked to cancer, then why are they NOT concerned about IGF-I that we humans make and secrete? On a quantitative basis, levels of milk IGF-I are a “drop in the bucket” compared to that produced daily in saliva and the digestive tract of humans.

Where’s All the Money Going?

So, the public discussion goes about the safety of rbST. Activists on one side and the truth-based science, on the other.

Activists don’t want to solve the problem, to find a middle ground. They need us in animal agriculture because they can’t stir up the pot unless there are targets and objectives to attack. They promote their “cause” while falsely attacking animal agriculture. To be relevant, they have to keep the business of activism going. Attacks bring visibility to their effort, and, oh yes, donations. Thus, another part of the smoke and mirrors of anti-ag activist attacks is revealed. There are enormous sums of money being collected by the activist’s groups that attack agriculture and biotechnology. Wonder what they do with all the money…don’t suppose some is being used for lavish salaries - wouldn’t that be interesting?

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Chad Dechow
Assistant Professor of Dairy Cattle Genetics
Department of Dairy and Animal Science
The Pennsylvania State University

The evil “Big Oil” companies are under threat of legislation and Congressional investigation for profiteering because they dare to make an entire 9 to 10 pennies per gallon of gasoline. Imagine the fun Congress could have with the folks selling rbST-free milk. For a mere dollar or two extra, you can now buy a gallon of milk from cows not treated with rbST. Only don’t pretend you’re helping out the hard working farmers who milk non rbST-treated cows. They will receive little or none of that premium.

Dairy producers are obviously not happy. The consumer-farmer price disparity is easy to spot with rbST-free milk, but this disparity is simply a time condensed and dramatic example of the long-term trend. USDA keeps track of trends in farm and consumer prices and the appalling rbST-free milk marketing gimmicks motivated me to dig up the numbers. Through the early 1980’s, farmers typically received 50% of the retail dollar. Today’s farmer will only pull in around 30% of the retail dollar.

Genetics, biotechnology, and evolving management practices have helped make our dairy farms more efficient, but that efficiency is not being passed to consumers. Retail prices have gone up at essentially the rate of inflation while the price paid to farmers has remained stagnant. The farm-to-retail price spread increased 241% from 1983 to 2005 (see Figure 1). Many dairy producers have lost the farm they’ve poured their life into because they could no longer pay their bills in such an environment. Cows lose in this deal as well. The constant drive toward greater farm efficiency makes proper stewardship of the creatures we care for that much more difficult.

Lower consumer prices for dairy products was one of the promises technologies like rbST were to deliver. So how has the consumer made out after approval of rbST? The retail price of milk increased 2.5% annually in the decade before rbST was approved and 3.0% in the decade after. That’s 0.5% higher than the rate of inflation in the later decade by the way. Promises that consumers would benefit from rbST use, in the form of lower milk price, have simply not been realized. The gain in farm efficiency is apparently being absorbed entirely by the folks in between farm and consumer. I find it rather demoralizing to think that genetic improvement and biotechnologies appear to help neither farm nor consumer. Maybe there’s a silver lining in this rbST-free cloud. It might just make folks sit up and question where our food dollars end up.

Figure 1. Source: Economic Research Service - USDA. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodPriceSpreads/basket/

Permalink

Comments are closed.