Three legged stool please

I received a letter from a dairy friend of mine in Kansas and he is greatly concerned, as I believe we should all be, about the recent actions of the entire dairy industry. He is a member of the Dairy Farmers of America (DFA), the nation's leading milk processor. DFA admits to controlling nearly one-third of the fresh milk marketed in this country. This dairyman's last check contained a letter asking him to sign an agreement promising to refrain from using rBST for an impressive premium of 50 cents per 100 pounds of milk.

If you don't know, rBST stands for Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin, a bio-engineered version of the naturally occurring hormone BST (Bovine somatotropin), which is produced in the pituitary glands of all cattle. BST has always been present in cow's milk at a concentration of about 10 parts-per-billion. Thus, it is not a new component that is being introduced to our food supply. For as long as humans have been drinking milk, they have been ingesting tiny amounts of this hormone. But when we mention the word hormone, people seem to think that "none is best" and experts have proven that is not the case.

Dr. Terry Etherton is the Head of the Department of Animal Science and a Distinguished Professor of Animal Nutrition at Penn State University. His expertise is in the area of growth hormones. Dr. Etherton has researched the public risk regarding somatotropins for nearly 20 years and states without hesitation, "There is no human health risk related to dairymen using rBST." He explained to me that rBST causes the release of Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1), which is a naturally occurring hormone in both dairy cows and humans. However, Etherton points out that rBST is a protein not recognized by human hormone receptors, thus they are referred to as "species specific". Consequently, rBST has no biological activity in humans and the human gut actually digests the protein into 191 amino acids that have no biological activity.

This science truly explains how a technology used to make today's food system more efficient does not pose any risk to my own milk-loving daughters. I suggested to Dr. Etherton that all the science in the world wouldn't put the average parent at ease unless we find a way to explain it in the form of a bumper sticker. He gave me some facts that everyone can relate to.

Our saliva naturally contains IGF-1. You would have to consume 100 quarts of milk in one day from rBST-treated cows to equal the amount of IGF-1 already present in your saliva. In addition to that, levels of IGF-1 in milk from rBST treated and non-treated cows are the same. The highest level of IGF-1 in a cow's milk is about 15 ng/ml. Human breast milk has up to 18 ng/ml of IGF-1. I doubt that God would provide mothers with a level of this essential growth factor that would be toxic for their babies.

In 1985, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA), upon exhaustive review, determined that meat and milk derived from cattle given rBST are safe for humans to consume. Specifically in reference to milk, the FDA stated that milk from a cow supplemented with rBST "is not different" from that of a non-supplemented cow. I wonder if DFA has given any thought to the fact that scientists agree that there is no difference between milk from cows treated or not treated with rBST. DFA, by implementing this ban is in essence, suggesting that milk is not safe, period. What will the small minority that is causing all the fuss want to get rid of next? Prostaglandins for synchronization? Three-a-day milkings? or how about the cows, period? Has Rick Smith, president and CEO of DFA, considered how he will respond when the vocal minority proclaims that soybeans make better milk products?

Two things that truly disturb me about the dairy industry are flavored milks and low fat options. Our nation has trouble with its waistline and is calcium deficient mostly because we have refrained from drinking an adequate amount to fluid milk. So our expert milk marketers, in the name of "supplying what the consumer wants," have begun to add sugar and flavorings to increase the consumption of low fat milk.

Dr. Mark Cook studies the benefits of Omega 3 fatty acids in dairy products at the University of Wisconsin and has determined that because we, as a society, choose 2 percent or even skim milk we have eliminated the opportunity for the Omega 3 benefits whole milk provides in the prevention of diabetes and certain types of cancer.

So with the notion that the customer is always right regardless of their training in nutrition, most consumers are missing out on all the health benefits milk consumption has to offer. Now the nation's largest dairy cooperative is asking dairymen to step away from the technology that has allowed U.S. dairymen to produce more food while using fewer natural resources.

What will their next demand be? If the dairyman doesn't sit on a three-legged stool while the cows are being milked, he too has to sell his milk to somebody else?

Editor's note: Trent Loos is a sixth generation United States farmer, host of the daily radio show, Loos Tales, and founder of Faces of Agriculture, a non-profit organization putting the human element back into the production of food. Get more information at www.FacesOfAg.com, or e-mail Trent at trent@loostales.com.

Date: 12/21/06

	Web hpj.com

Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2008.  High Plains Publishers, Inc.  All rights reserved.  Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com