So first we have an editorial in the Western Michigan University’s student newspaper, the Western Herald, about how farmers using growth hormone to increase milk production will be seeing lower prices for their milk. It starts off well enough, laying the groundwork of what’s going on:
By February, Michigan dairy farmers who decline to treat their cows with a growth hormone to increase milk production will be paid more for their milk. Those who opt to continue the use of the growth hormone, recombinant bovine somatotropin, on their cows will be penalized with lower prices paid for their milk.
This new approach to persuade producers against using growth hormones to increase milk production was introduced last week by the Michigan Milk Producers Association, Dean Foods and Dairy Farmers of America, three of the largest milk marketing groups in the state.
Many Michigan dairy farmers are upset by the news, defending the use of the hormone by citing that the FDA has approved it for use and that removing the hormone from milk production will only serve to increase the price of milk.
Fair enough. But then the piece goes into crazy-hippy-propaganda-land, blaming the growth hormone for not only several ailments to the cows in question, but also a number of human problems.
about 20 veterinary health risks through Posilac including udder infection and inflammation, severe reproductive problems, digestive disorders, foot and leg ailments and persistent sores and lacerations.
Don’t care about the animals? In humans, rbST milk has been shown as a major cause of breast, colon and prostate cancer. Interestingly enough, almost every industrialized nation in the world has banned rbST treated milk – except, of course, the United States.
Oh noes, the cancers! Wikipedia can explain it better than I. Basically, use of a growth hormone that increases milk production in animals possibly causes increases in ailments and complications that happen when you have increased milk production. But you’d see the same things happen with selective breeding for higher production, too. The human studies seem inconclusive:
Canada’s health board, Health Canada, commissioned a study which found “no biologically plausible reason for concern about human safety if rbST were to be approved for sale in Canada. The only exception to this statement is (possible hypersensitivity).”[17]
IGF-1 is important for normal development. However, several studies have identified correlations between elevated levels of IGF-1 and undesirable conditions or diseases. These studies have not concluded that elevated IGF-1 causes undesirable conditions or diseases, nor have they concluded that the undesirable conditions or diseases cause elevated IGF-1. Particularly, some studies found that IGF-1 levels in the human blood stream are elevated in patients with breast, prostate or colorectal cancer.[18] In 1998, the American Cancer Society reported a correlation between human blood levels of IGF-1 (often associated with obesity) and breast cancer,[19] prostate cancer,[20] and colorectal cancer.[21] Increased plasma levels of IGF-1 are associated with a higher risk of diabetes and a shorter lifespan in animal studies
So, it may cause problems, possibly, or it may not. Fine, back to the original issue. Then the editorial goes into rant mode and starts blaming The Man and capitalism for killing babies, causing cancer, and buying products made in China. Sweet.
So a certain someone I know wrote in a response. Go Jeff! Of course, you also have to have the choi chime in, courtesy of the friendly neighborhood PETA hippy. (the PETA thing is a guess, but I’ll hedge my bets from Google) Milk is bad! Meat is bad! Using animals is unhealthy! Rabble rabble rabble….
Can someone explain to me why, if a farmer’s livelihood is his livestock, why he wouldn’t want that livestock to be in the best environment possible? The whole argument that livestock lives a cruel life doesn’t make sense, why would you want to threaten that which makes you money?
Ahhhh, Mondays!
September 10th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
We had a couple days of lecture on BST in my dairy production class (Animal Science major, that’s right!). They compared a BST-treated cow’s milk with human breast milk. The human breast milk had like 8 times higher concentration of IGF in it than the cow milk. Hmmm, do you suppose breast milk is like crack now? Perhaps breast milk should be banned…all our children are going to die of cancer!!! Stupid hippies…
September 15th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Well Jen… Hippies probably feed their babies soy, or rice milk anyways… that incomplete amino acid profile must really help their young bodies develop…. theres a reason Hippies are all skinny fat, or just plain fat, maybe it has something to do with Animal producst being needed to build a healthy muscular and skeletal system?