MILLER: Udder nonsense about milk

It is noteworthy that in his defense of rBST, Mr. Miller never mentions that administration of this drug causes cows to become ill, which in turn necessitates the administration of antibiotics, which in turn end up in milk, which in turn contributes to the growing problem of antibiotic resistance. More important is the simple fact that humans have no nutritional requirement for the milk of a cow or any other mammalian species. All calcium needs are easily satisfied from fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes, nuts and seeds. In the hundreds of millions of people worldwide who can not drink cow's milk due to lactose deficiency, that is exactly where calcium comes from. A million dairy cows consume precious drinking water, produce enormous amounts of waste that frequently pollutes our waterways, as well as release copious amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Whether produced from rBST treated cows or not, milk consumption is associated with higher body weight and a higher risk for prostate and breast cancers. Milk also delivers unwanted saturated fat and cholesterol, both of which, in excess, are associated with a higher risk of heart disease and stroke. The sooner we kick the dairy habit, the better off the entire planet will be. --Joseph Keon, Ph.D., Greenbrae CA

Smile and bring it on baby, I love that milk. Tell the kooks to go boil some water!

Doctor Miller, While I do not consider myself a "food kook" since I eat most items without consideration of chemical or hormonal additives, I don't trust the FDA "Whack-jobs" to verify that something is safe for me to eat. I apologize for the label, but if it offends you, consider your own text. What should be noted here is the failure of the FDA to catch often life-threatening problems with drugs prior to their widespread release. A quote from a brief in the NEJM states that the FDA is not only "seriously hampered in its ability to determine the risks of drugs before they are approved for sale, but it has proven inadequate to the task of addressing hazards that only become apparent after a drug has been widely marketed to an unsuspecting public." Need we mention Vioxx, Meridian, Bextra, Accutane, Crestor, Serevent, etc... So because the FDA has approved of a drug and deemed it safe means absolutely nothing to me. The other point I would like to make is that the administration of rBST has been shown to increase the level of IGFs (Insuline-like growth factors) in the produced milk. Human and cow IGFs are virtually indistinguishable. High IGF-I levels in particular have been tied to prostate cancer risk (Chan et al., 1998; Brower, 1998) and to breast cancer (Dunn et al., 1997) (Bohlke et al., 1998)(Hankinson et al., 1998). While rBST is practically destroyed in pasteurization, IGF is not. I concede that the risks are not agreed upon, but if there is a risk, shouldn't it be public knowledge? While I will still buy and drink milk of both varieties, I will seek out "rBST free" milk. Your stated environmental benefits are overshadowed by the knowledge that the dairy producers are not doing this to save the planet. They are doing it to make a buck. If there is indeed an increased cancer risk, then it isn't an ethical buck. Regards, Eric

Dr. Miller, You are correct in all facts in your commentary, and I commend you for that. The dairy industry must shoulder a bit of the blame. For many years, people like myself realized the potential problem of marketing milk on the one hand as "nature's most perfect food", while on the other hand a milk carton could be required to have a label something along the lines of "Warning, this product contains hormones known to cause cancer in humans." That irony is causing a part of the problem today with the issues over rbST labeling. My unscientific observation among the people I know in the Washington, DC area is that they know that the milk is the same. They are willing to pay more money for milk from cows raised within the organic guidelines or without rbST supplementation because they think that it's different for the cows. I describe this a bit more in my <a href="http://dairyadviser.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-people-want-labels-on-milk.html">blog posting on the topic </a>. Hope that helps DairyScienceMark

As a consumer, I'm frankly tired of being manipulated by niche marketing efforts to take extra dollars out of my pocket "for my own good." I like hamburgers smothered with cheese and I like them at a price I can afford.

In recent days, I've seen more than one article indicating food safety is the top-of-mind issue for most consumers. What folks have to remember is that it's the use of safe, effective and approved technologies that keeps our food abundant, affordable, and yes, safe. It's unfortunate that food companies, in pursuit of programs to sell identical products at substantial price premiums, have decided to use fear as a marketing tool instead of product quality and diversiy.

I concur with Dr. Miller and add that practically all line items in the organic food movement are equally misleading and non-scientific based as the allegations against rBST, which is a valuable, safe, milk producing tool. The motives behind "organic" are driven by greed, i.e. extra margin, and vanity, i.e. consumers want to appear to do something good. We must produce as much food in the next 35 years as has ever been produced by humanity. In order to do this, agriculture must have biotechnology like GMO grains, herbicides and rBST or else people will starve. These items might not have the market sexiness of "organic", but they will get the job done in feeding the poor. If you're a consumer using, embracing and promoting "organic" you are doing your part to embolden those who will prevent these life saving food production tools from being implemented. If these FDA proven safe biotechnology tools are banned in America, the rest of the world will follow suit. I am from an IA farm and have worked in practically all sectors of animal agriculture. I too could embrace "organic" and probably make more money. But I know it's a fallacy and I believe it's a house of cards that will fall. The American consumer is too smart for this. More important, losing biotech is a moral issue because it will also lead to mass starvation, and we dare not let happen. Dave Wood Eau Claire, WI

I'm a dairy farmer that has been using bst for several years. My cows are my life and I get a little upset when people who do not know me say that the only reason I do what I do is for the money. Most dairymen I know take producing one of natures most perfect foods very seriously. I can pretty much guarantee that making money is on most dairymens minds but that it is down the list a ways of why we do this. We must make a profit to continue to do what we love doing, to provide a great lifestyle for our families, and to provide safe affordable dairy products for our consumers. BST is safe for the cow, I would never do anything that wasn't, it is safe for the consumer, and is good for the environment and we produce more with less which equals sustianability.

Thank you so very much Dr. Miller for helping us tell our story. I am a dairy producer from Wisconsin, I milk 200 cows. There is nothing more important to me than the health of my cows and the health of the people we feed. Technology such as rbST, and many others help me do the best job possible protecting natural resources while producing large amounts of milk. Dairy farmers all over this country have been busy doing a great job with their land and cows, but we have not been as diligent telling our story. The truth is, nearly all milk is produced on family owned farms with gentle care. Yes, even the regular “conventional” milk!! Because we are farmers not promoters/marketers we have left ourselves open to the insinuations and outright attacks of those who stand to gain from these bogus niches. Those propagating these lies are the only ones winning. The environment is not better off when my cows are less efficient, my cows are not better off when they have to leave the herd early due to low production, my family is not better off when our business is not as profitable and most importantly the people we feed are not better off when they have to pay more to feed their families. After more than 14 years on the market and more than a decade of testing before that we know the milk is safe. Let's call a spade a spade and spend our time solving a real problem.

Statements like "the administration of this drug causes cows to become ill, which in turn necessitates the administration of antibiotics, which in turn end up in the milk" are a sure sign of the ignorance of the writer. As a dairyman of 45 years we DO NOT do things to make our cows unhealthy or uncomfortable and beside it is illegal to sell milk with antibiotics in it. This is a well written article by Henry Miller stating the facts about rBST.

Dr. Miller, Thank you for your words of wisdom. I’m thrilled that a physician has set the story straight- rbST is a safe and effective management tool! I work with dairy producers across the United States and Canada. It is in their best interest to have healthy cows, as healthy cows produce more milk. A producer would not knowingly supplement anything to their cows that would harm them. rbST is a safe and effective management tool that dairy producers need to help supply the country with the milk it needs at an affordable price. As Dr. Miller mentioned, this technology also helps producers conserve more water and fuel since cows consume less feed and water and produce less manure. This makes agriculture more sustainable, which we need in a time when the supply of our natural resources is limited. Scientists and regulatory agencies agree that rbST is safe for animal use and human safety. More than 20 countries have approved rbST for animal use and more than 50 countries have approved it for human safety. It’s time the American consumers become aware that the milk from cows has the same nutritional makeup with no human health risk, regardless of whether the cows have been supplemented with rbST or not. Note: For more information on the science behind this go to www.milkismilk.com Dr. Robin Rastani Carpentersville, IL

Dr. Miller, Thank You, as a dairy farmer I can testify that rbST is benifitial for the cow the farmer and the consumer.We drink our own milk and understand that all milk is healthy, thanks again for helping to clear up any confusion that may be out there.

I would like to thank Dr. Miller for his article in defense of the use of rbST in the production of milk. My husband and I are proud to be the fifth generation of his family who are progressive farmers. We currently milk about 140 Holsteins. We resent the implication that has been floating around in the general media that mainstream farmers are maliciously pumping dangerous substances into our food products for a larger profit. This is simply not true! As farmers, we have a moral imperative to feed the world. That is a big job! The human population continues to grow at an amazing pace, while farm land, and the number of farmers continue to decline. Without technologies such as rbST to make us more efficient we will not be able to provide high quality food at prices that are affordable for everyone. Before I joined my husband in the full-time management of our family farm, I was a clinical laboratory scientist at a major medical and research facility. I am trained to read and understand scientific papers and the results of clinical trials. I am also familiar with the way the FDA drug approval process works. All of the dairy products my family consumes come from cows that are supplemented with rbST. If I had any doubt about the safety of dairy products from these animals, I certainly would not allow my family to consume them, nor would we continue to use rbST on our farm! It is ludicrous to suggest that mainstream farmers are not concerned with the environment. Our very way of life is tied more closely to the welfare of the earth than almost any other. If we do not care for our land,it will soon stop caring for us! Using rbST in our milk production is one way we can decrease our carbon footprint. Anyone who would say that a dairy farmer would deliberately make his animals sick obviously has no familiarity with dairying. On the contrary, we spend a great deal of time and effort making sure that our cows are not only as healthy as they possibly can be, but that they are as comfortable as possible as well. Sick animals DO NOT increase profitability! Anyone who would say that dairy farmers do not care about their cows has obviously never spent any time on a dairy farm. Otherwise, they would know that we do care deeply for the animals we live and work with seven days a week, 365 days a year. Our cows are my daughter's closest confidants - they never reveal her secrets! Watching the heifers kick up their heels and play like children in the pasture never fails to bring a smile to my face. Every newborn calf is a cause for celebration, and when our cow "Teddy Bear" died of extreme old age last year, we mourned as though we had lost a dear family member.

Eric, With regard to your point about possible elevation of IGFs in milk from rBST-treated cows, it is important to realize that IGFs are protein hormones that are rapidly denatured in the stomach. Therefore, even though the IGF concentrations are slightly elevated above milk from unsupplemented cows, this hormone will not have any biological activity due to degradation. This mechanism is easily explained by the fact that diabetics cannot take insulin orally because it will be digested. Regards, Dr. David Carlson

Thank you Dr. Miller, As a dairy farmer with two separate herds of dairy cows, one herd supplimented with rBST, one not, I feel strongly that there is no difference between the health of the cows in the two herds. I am proud to use the technology developed to make dairying more effecient. It does help us stay profitable and inturn in business. Here in Vermont people love to see the green fields on our rolling hills. Without the advancment of technologies and use of rBST, fewer farms would be in business. Thank you again Dr. Miller for helping battle the the nonsense spread by groups with hidden adgendas. I hope the general public believes me when I say I would not use supplimental BST on any of my cows if it were harmful, because that is the truth!!!