Terry Etherton’s Blog on Hormones, Biotechnology, and Food Safety

John Fetrow VMD, MBA
Professor of Dairy Medicine
College of Veterinary Medicine
University of Minnesota
1365 Gortner Ave.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55108

Terry D. Etherton, Ph.D.
Department Head & Distinguished Professor of Animal Nutrition
Department of Dairy & Animal Science
324 W.L. Henning Bldg
Penn State University
University Park, PA 16802

Milk is probably the most pure, wholesome, safe, highly regulated, inspected, and most carefully handled food that any of us consume. Dairy products provide a wealth of nutrients, including protein, energy, vitamins, and minerals. Even the butterfat in milk contains substances that may reduce cancer risks and help prevent obesity.

Last year, consumers in the US spent $90 billion on dairy products. Organic fluid milk was only 2% of the fluid milk market and was priced significantly higher than conventional milk. Organic and “rbST-free” milk are routinely advertised as being somehow healthier, less risky, more environmentally friendly, and produced by “happier” cows than conventional milk. Consumers are led to believe that organic milk is better, or that “rbST-free” milk is safer. The truth is quite different, but behind these claims are very powerful corporate interests that know that they can sell the same product at a higher price if they can create doubt or spread fear about conventional milk.

Recently, over 200 different samples of retail milk of all types were purchased in stores from across the nation. In this study, conventional milk, “rbST-free” milk, and organic milk were tested by audited procedures. Within milk fat categories (skim, 1%, 2%, etc.) all samples had the same nutrient content. All had the same levels of the hormones estrogen, IGF-1, and all forms of bST. None contained antibiotics.

It is easy to scare people by using the word “hormone,” but all milk contains hormones and always has. Milk contains progesterone and estrogen, which are steroid hormones. The levels of these hormones are the same in whatever milk you drink, and their presence poses no health risk to humans. Vitamin D is a steroid hormone and is added to milk. Milk also contains protein hormones, such as bovine somatotropin (also called bST or bovine growth hormone, bGH) and IGF-1. Both are present in tiny quantities in milk, are digested just like any other protein you eat (steak or tofu), and have no effect in people when eaten. Specifically, the level of BST in milk we consume is the same from all types of dairies, whether they use rbST to increase production in their cows or not.

The anti-bST campaign is particularly deceptive. BST has been used in cows for more than a decade, and there has been no indication of any impact of its use on the milk produced or the health of people who consume the milk. Every major credible health organization around the world that has looked at the issues of bST and food safety, including the American Medical Association, American Pediatrics Association, Health Canada, European Commission, and the FDA, has agreed that milk from rbST-treated cows is the same as any other milk. The vague and unsupportable assertions about “cancer” or “antibiotic resistance” (bST is not an antibiotic) are simply not scientifically credible. Oft-repeated smear campaigns can, however, gradually shape the public’s perceptions, and major food corporations understand the power of fear in selling food.

Some of the roots of this disinformation effort about milk reach into the board rooms of major corporate players in the food industry. Huge corporate interests can increase their profits if people fear conventional milk. They can make more money selling “rbST-free” milk at $4.00 per gallon or organic milk at $6.00 per gallon (or more) than by selling conventional milk at $3.00 per gallon, and the majority of that profit differential stays in the corporation’s hands. It doesn’t matter that the milk inside the carton is the same, organic, “rbST-free”, or not. Dean Foods, for example, is the nation’s largest fluid milk marketer and had over $10 billion in sales last year. Dean Foods is the parent company for Horizon Organic Milk and White Wave soy “milk”. Whole Foods, the nation’s largest organic grocery corporation, earned $5 billion last year. Both of these corporations make large donations to “public interest” advocacy groups, such as the Organic Center. Probably not coincidentally, the President and Chief Operating Officer of Whole Foods and the General Counsel of Dean Foods sit on the Board of Directors of the Organic Center. The Organic Center, under the guise of serving the public, spreads fear and disinformation about conventional milk and other products of conventional agriculture, and then neatly refers visitors from its web site to other web resources supporting Horizon Organic and Whole Foods.

Support of organic or “rbST-free” milk products may stem from concern about the environment, but the science does not support those positions. Cows given rbST produce more milk. In doing so, their efficiency of production increases and they eat less feed for each gallon of milk they produce. In fact, it takes about 6 to 8% less land to produce milk from cows given rbST. Less land plowed, less fertilizer, less of all of the inputs that go into producing the dairy products consumers enjoy. These cows release less greenhouse gas into the environment per gallon of milk produced, reducing their impact on global warming. This means there is less impact on the environment to produce our nation’s milk. In fact, a recently released British government study of organic farming found that in many cases, organic farming was less environmentally friendly than conventional agricultural practices. This was particularly true of milk production. The report concludes, in part, that organic milk requires 80 percent more land per gallon of milk produced, generates 20 percent more carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas), and produces almost double the amount of other byproducts that can lead to acidification of soil and pollution of water.

And what of the claims that organic farms use no antibiotics? Avoiding antibiotics might sound like a good idea, unless you happen to be a sick cow. Conventional farms use antibiotics on a milking cow only if the cow is sick with a serious and treatable bacterial disease. All dairymen avoid using antibiotics when possible to avoid having to throw the cow’s milk away while the cow is on treatment. Milk from treated cows is discarded both during and for a prescribed number of days after treatment to assure that antibiotics do not get into the milk supply. Every shipment of milk from every dairy is tested for major antibiotics before that milk is allowed into the human food system. The milk you buy at the store does not have antibiotics in it, regardless of the type of dairy it came from. Labels that imply otherwise are deceptive and are used only to create mistrust among consumers and to sell more expensive alternatives.

Are cows on organic farms “happier” or healthier? If a cow on an organic dairy needs to be treated for a bacterial disease (infection in her udder, infection in her uterus after calving, pneumonia, etc.), the organic rules say she must be treated and that she can never again be used to produce organic milk. A new dairy cow costs about $2,000. Treating her properly when she is sick on an organic dairy is a major loss. The truth is that some sick cows on organic dairies are left to fend for themselves without treatment, or treatment is delayed until such a time that its effectiveness becomes questionable. Sick cows on organic dairies may be treated with unproven, untested, and questionably effective products with unknown effects on the milk the cow produces. You have to ask yourself just how humane it is to withhold medically proven therapy from a sick cow so that you can continue to sell higher-priced milk to the organic market. Some organic dairies have skirted the high cost of replacing cows that require antibiotics by treating the cow with antibiotics, withholding her milk from distribution, and hoping not to get caught. The truth is that if the “organic” farmer withholds the milk long enough (just like conventional farmers do), there is no way to tell if the organic farmer has used antibiotics, just as there is no way to tell from the milk if a dairy uses rbST or not. The milk is all the same.

Many who pay high prices for organic or “rbST-free” milk do so out of a combination of manipulated fear and/or a genuine concern for the safety of milk, protection of the environment, and welfare of the cow. At best, they have been misinformed. All milk is what it always has been: a wholesome, safe, nutritious product produced by family-owned dairies that care about their cows, their land, and the quality of the product they sell. For those who purchase expensive dairy products, please remember that the premium price paid does not change what is in the package; only the prices are different.

####

This letter has been signed by over 70 additional academic scientists in animal science and veterinary medicine who urge consumers to make informed science-based decisions when purchasing milk.

The following academic scientists are co-signatories of the letter:

While we addressed our requests to academics for their support, other
people in the dairy field also signed the letter.

See a reprint of this blog post for Feedstuffs.com.