Grading Science Journalism - A Case Study of Lousy Science Journalism
Terry D. Etherton
The Case Study
The following editorial on milk labeling, Truth is spilled over milk, was published in the January 3, 2008 issue of the Centre Daily Times (State College, Pennsylvania).
As an educator for almost 30 years, and having given countless quizzes and exams, I thought it would be informative for the readers of my blog for me to GRADE this editorial.
My rationale?
I know the subject well. And, I have read countless stories in the popular press about rbST and its application in the dairy industry. A “truckload” of these articles are laughable in their lack of accuracy and fairness.
Onward We Go…I Grade the Editorial
I have elected to grade the editorial (see below in black font) by presenting my comments (in red font) after sections that are inaccurate or misleading!
The grade is presented at the end of the blog.
Truth is spilled over milk
Centre Daily Times
State College, PA
Published in the January 3, 2008 issue
Do cows injected with synthetic growth hormone produce milk that is less safe than milk produced by their drug-free dairy counterparts? Use of the word “synthetic”…commonly used to imply that something must be unwholesome about the molecule (growth hormone or somatotropin). However, this synthetic molecule acts exactly the same as the one God makes in the cow. I rarely hear anyone express concern about the synthetic drugs their physician prescribes. Any reader who has had a hip or knee replacement concerned about their “synthetic” joint? Don’t imagine anyone is too concerned about the synthetic cars we drive. Synthetic is a beautiful word that has been hijacked to convey scary stuff.
That is not the issue.
At least, it should not be.
But the folks at Monsanto — the multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation that manufactures, along with genetically engineered seeds, recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) — and its customers and apologists have made it the question under consideration, thereby drawing attention from the real issue.
Should consumers — and isn’t it interesting how people, in the economic and social equations, are always reduced to purchasers, users and devourers of goods that are manufactured and sold? Should consumers have the right to know what is in the products they buy and the food they eat? Aha! Is this right more important than truth-in-labeling? A classic example of deceptive labeling on milk cartons is a label that reads: Certified to come from cows now treated with rbST. This implies rbST is bad, which it is NOT. Plus, all milk contains bST, and treatment of cows with rbST does not alter milk bST levels. Last deception is the use of the word “certified”. There is NO assay on the planet available to determine if a cow has been treated with rbST, so there is no way to prove whether the milk is rbST free or not. Moreover, it doesn’t matter since rbST and bST are the same!
An extension of this claim is that everyone should know what ALL the stuff is in the food and beverages they consume. This is impossible. First the list of chemicals in the food we eat is enormous, and a whole bunch are not known! Then, it would be a challenge for everyone to understand all of this stuff. The truth is, most consumers don’t care.
The answer to the first question — is there a difference in milk from synthetic hormone-free and injected cows? — depends, as do most questions of this sort, on whom one asks.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says there is no proof that milk from injected cows is unsafe. Some health experts, however, say questions about the drug’s impacts — especially on cows — remain unanswered. The inaccuracy in this paragraph alone is sufficient to give the article an “F.” There are stacks and stacks of data from more than 3,000 scientific studies published in the scientific literature on bST/rbST. The conclusion: Use of the technology does NOT pose an increased risk to either cows or consumers. Capable and recognized scientists have no problem with the technology. Unfortunately, some crackpot activists pretending to be scientists are on the side of the debate, and working hard to scare consumers. Plus, the author is *really* vague about just who these supposed “health experts” are, and precisely what they’re saying - doesn’t cite a single one.
Those scientists, however, do not have the ear of state Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff — who, incidentally, used the hormone on his own dairy herd, although his family got out of the business in 1999. But dairy farmers who do use rbST — helping to produce an extra 10 pounds of milk per cow per day, according to one Centre County proponent — have persuaded Wolff to issue an absence-labeling edict. This is simply bad journalism…implying that Secretary Wolff is a tout to dairy producers. To borrow a word from the editorial…BULL.
As of Feb. 1, Pennsylvania will become the first state in the country to ban labels on milk bottles and cartons that proclaim the product therein to have been produced without using the controversial — in some circles — synthetic hormone. Labels of this type simply confuse people, the reasoning goes, implying that milk produced by using rBST is unsafe.
Bull.
There are reasons Europe and Canada have banned the use of the synthetic growth hormone on dairy cattle. One, as suggested above, is the effect on the cows themselves. Treated cows have an increased risk of mastitis, an udder infection, and according to some researchers, may have reduced pregnancy rates. For the facts on this nonsense…read my blog “Bovine Somatotropin (bST) Safety Around the World.” It is absolutely mystifying why a responsible journalist would write this and ignore the facts. Come on!!
And milk from rbST-treated cattle has been shown to have higher levels of a protein — between 25 percent and 70 percent higher — than is naturally present in the blood of cows and humans: insulin-like growth factor 1, or IGF-1. IGF-1, in high levels, has been associated with certain human cancers. The editorial is heading towards a grade of 40 with this “stuff.” Yes, IGF-I is in milk. What is overlooked is the following. IGF-I is present in cows and humans, and is identical. That is, the amino acid sequence is exactly the same. You would have to consume 95 quarts of milk per day to get the same amount of IGF-I that is made and secreted in your saliva each day! If IGF-I is a cancer concern, which, by the way it is not, then you should be more concerned about the IGF-I you are making in your spit, not what you are drinking in milk!
So back to Question 1: Is milk from injected cows unsafe? “There is no smoking gun,” Michael Pollak, director of McGill University’s Division of Cancer Prevention in Montreal, said. This is good…maybe there is some hope for the story….
But that brings us to the second and what should be the critical question: Do people have the right to know what is in the products they buy and the food they eat? Absolutely and fundamentally, and Wolff’s ruling, which will take effect in less than a month, is a clear violation of that right. The language “absolutely and fundamentally” is silly; we don’t even know this if we grow our own food.
Is milk from treated cows less expensive? Unquestionably. Is it any less safe? The FDA has ruled that it isn’t, but the jury, for many, remains out. Hmmm, I spoke too soon. The jury is not out. There is no safety issue. We have the safest food supply in recorded history. It is unfortunate that so much time, energy and money is being spent on this nonissue. There are more important and pressing social issues to be concerned about than the milk and dairy products we consume.
But even granting that the milk is the same, farmers who choose not to use the synthetic hormone should be able to tell their customers, on the label, that they don’t. Should we put labels on all foods saying they all have hormones? Because they do. Soybean oil, for example, is loaded with phytoestrogens, a class of steroid hormones. Also, why use labels that deceptively tout there are no pesticides in milk when there are none there?! This leads some consumers to think that conventional milk (non-labeled) must have them.
And people (consumers, if you must) who do not want to buy or drink milk from rbST-treated cows, for whatever reasons — even if they are, as the Monsanto lobby insists, misguided — and are willing to pay extra for that privilege, should be able to find the information they are seeking on the milk container label. Well, if we go down this “thought path” what happens to all dairy farmers who use rbST, and make some money on this? Is it OK to steal their profit tool and not compensate them? I don’t hear many activists saying that they are concerned about cheating dairy farmers who use rbST out of their hard earned profit.
Claiming that labeling of this type is confusing simply muddles the issue. The only thing muddled, and the word should be muddied, is the truth in this editorial.
GRADE: 35%…..an F.
Context by the Blog Author
As readers of my blogs appreciate, I am a scientist and have been active in the public discussion about the need for, and benefits of science in agriculture and in the food system.
Conducting science and coupling discoveries made to the development of new products has been, and continues to be, a key aspect of our economy. There are huge benefits realized from the application of scientific discoveries to medicine, agriculture, and society.
Does anyone want to go back to 1850 and use the medical technology or food production systems in place then? I have not met many folks who want to do that.
To read some of the articles published in the media, including this Centre Daily Times editorial, one could conclude that scientists are misguided, and that consumers should not trust anything published in the scientific literature. This is nonsense!
A significant and growing problem in the world of journalism, as I see it, is the extent to which bad science journalism is being practiced!
Most journalists don’t know much about science, and don’t seem interested in learning. Does this stop them from getting on their “soap box” and peddling misguided information in their story or opinion-editorial piece?
Absolutely not!
I have done many interviews with journalists. I have become mindful that there is a good chance the story, if it deals with biotechnology or the rbST-free milk battle, will be framed where there are three elements to the story: a villain, victim, and vindicator.
Guess which role scientists and technology-supportive dairy producer’s frequently play in this?
Yes, you guessed it - we are the villains! Amazing isn’t it?
Often it seems the goal of the journalist is to seek “balance.” So, the journalist talks with a few consumers, some anti-science activists, and maybe a scientist or two. The resulting story ends up biased, inaccurate, and certainly unfair. If the intent is to accurately inform the readership, then why is this approach taken?
Perhaps someone should ask the folks at the Centre Daily Times who wrote the editorial about their objective in publishing such a slanted and inaccurate editorial!
Well…maybe it’s not so puzzling if the intent is to sensationalize the article, and scare and mislead consumers. Maybe there is an agenda hidden behind this?
