Thursday, November 1, 2007

dairy products demystified

If you're a label-reader, as I am, then you may have come across the following message on one of your dairy products: "Does not contain the growth hormone rBST." This message is generally followed by an asterisk, with a fine-print footnote that says, "Federal tests have proven that there is no significant difference between rBST treated milk and non-rBST treated milk."

This message strikes me as fairly cryptic. If there is no difference between treated and untreated milk, then why brag about it? But can it be possible that there is no difference? What is rBST, anyway? Should I be avoiding dairy products from rBST-fed cows?

rBST stands for recombinant bovine somatotropin. It's also known as rBGH, or recombinant bovine growth hormone. Basically, it's a synthetic version of a naturally-occurring growth hormone that aids cows in lactation. Cows that are administered a synthetic version are able to lactate longer and thereby produce more milk over their lactation cycle than cows that rely only on the naturally-occurring BST. If you are beginning to think this sounds like a clever way for industrial agriculture to increase their yields, you're onto something. In fact, rBST was developed by Monsanto and sells under the brand name Posilac.

With rBST, as is so often the case with industrial agriculture, steps taken by large corporations to increase yield and productivity on the farm run counter to basic concerns about animal welfare, human health and environmental protection. Let's take these concerns one by one.

Animal Welfare

Cows treated with rBST are up to 50% more likely to develop "lameness" (hoof problems), mastitis (inflamation of the udder), and failure to conceive.

Human Health

Monsanto goes to great lengths to convince consumers that there is no difference between rBST-treated dairy products and untreated products. However, concerned citizens' groups such as The Center for Food Safety point to research that shows that rBST-treated milk demonstrates higher levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). Higher levels of IGF are correlated to higher incidence of breast, prostate and colon cancers.

Environmental Concerns

Every time we administer antibiotics, artificial hormones or other chemicals to livestock, residual amounts end up in our water supply. (This concern was one of the leading drivers of the original "organic" movement.)

Other food for thought

No other industrialized country in the world allows the sale of rBST-treated dairy products.

So where does that leave us? Industrial agriculture's (read: Monsanto's) argument is that rBST increases milk yield, which is good for farmers (they make more profits) and good for consumers (the cost of milk is kept lower). I think these claims should be taken with a grain of salt. Monsanto is the entity that stands to profit the most from sales of rBST. When an equation exists that says farmers must increase production so that consumer prices stay low, then the only farmers who stand to gain are the largest farmers, not the small or medium-sized farmers. Finally, if we take costs to human health in consideration, then the true price of rBST-treated dairy products is much higher than the sticker price we face at the grocery stores.

For those of us living in Northern California, it seems that most of our milk is already rBST-free. Indeed, Trader Joe's, Safeway and Whole Foods (my main grocery stores, when I'm not shopping at the farmer's markets) have all banned rBST milk (at least in my region). (Read the Chronicle article here.) But when I'm in other parts of the country and have to decide between milk from treated or untreated cows, I'll gladly spend the extra few cents to keep the artificial hormone out of the cows' diet and thereby out of mine.

No comments: