Jumping at Stripes - Dancing with Tigers
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.
