anne faith - I hope that you have a strong case that Monsanto has a monopoly on Roundup Ready seeds since this monopoly was granted by the patent office for 17 years. Duh - This is why patents encourage long-term research.

obmaj - Please provide a reference for the assertion that most people are lactose intolerant. Where do you get this stuff from?

Treefrog - Keep drinking that unpasterized milk - yum yum

A perfect example of corporations buying our government and controlling our laws so they can push their CRAP on us.

Anything for the almighty dollar. Money is the root of all evil.

yeah, why do we need to be informed about what we put in our bodies?

won't a simple "trust us. we make money this way" sticker be just as informative?

amen

Not surprising. It seems evident now that the FDA is a corporate servent. Wow, do we ever need someone like Ralph Nader.

Milk is only one aspect. Corporations want to rule us more tyrannically than any government ever imagined. Orwell's 1984 properly scared us of governments;Huxley's Brave New World should have properly frightened us of corporations.

Let's be done with both! Those two forms of human organization have both been tried and have both failed. There ARE alternatives(Margaret Thatcher's
lack of imagination notwithstanding...and Ronald Reagan's...and Newt Grinch's).

Milk from a large bovine is unnatural for a human diet anyway--it was the perfect food for one being, a calf-and they are deprived if it and put into the veal industry as a by product of milk.

Dont drink it.
Its crap.

I hope people in Missouri call their congressmen

As a human health scientist I can't speak for animal health, but as far as human health is concerned, this article is another fine example of an attempt to create another health scare. The fact is, labeling milk as "rbGH-free" is misleading. No milk contains this hormone, only the cows. This is like labeling potato chips cholesterol free, or low in saturated fat. Potatoes don't contain cholesterol anyway! It is not just 'advocates', the FDA notes that there are no differences in the milk produced by cows treated or not treated with rbGH. The fact that consumers might prefer milk from non-treated cows, is not relevant to whether or not consumers should actually be concerned or not. Further, why is labeling "vitally needed" when the authors admit that there is no strong scientific data for their claims around IGF-1? Is no one concerned about the obvious exploitation of consumers?

There was so much opposition to bovine growth hormone in Indiana that legislators received a bundle of mail about it. The issue was dropped.

Starbucks no longer used milk with rbGH. Krogers doesn't and Walmart just announced they wouldn't. Mondanto keeps trying but I think that this is one they've lost.

sask,

I have a proposition for you. I'm serious. A $1000.00 bet. We'll take samples of milk from cows known to be rbGH free and from cows known to have been submitted to the "normal" rbGH regimen. Then we'll take the samples to an independant third party, and tell that individual which came from "rbGH cows" and which came from "non-rbGH cows". The third party will label the samples only "Sample 1" and "Sample 2". The samples will be taken to a well-respected and "certified" independant laboratory for testing. ZERO rbGH in both samples and you win. ANY concentration of rbGH, even as low as one part per billion, and I win. Take the bet. It ought to be a sure thing for you, and it will certainly shut ME up, right? Take the bet. Take the bet.

-- kent shaw

That is, one part per billion in the sample known to have come from the "rbGH" cow.

ok firstly lets get our quotes straight..

the LOVE of money is the root of all evil

Money ( in it's original incarnation)was a convenient way to aid in barter.

we all like money.. but those who love ( as it is their god ) are the ones raping and pillaging the globe.

So they feed the cows GM corn.. toss in a whack of man made chemicals, then say '' oh way better for you than natural''..

even to the point of claiming that the processed baby formulas they concoct, are better for babies than mothers milk.

in a perfect, even not so perfect world these types would be jailed for fraud etc.

Wouldn't this law violate the first amendment?

I just emailed them.

http://www.monsanto.com/who_we_are/contact_us.asp

Amazingly, you MUST consent to having your information shared to submit your email. I invented information, using a previous email address, and it worked. Writing them to let them know what corporate thugs you regard them is a good idea; in fact, we have no right to gripe unless we gripe to the right people. In Pennsylvania, it is already illegal for milk producers to state on labels that their milk does not contain this hormone.

Monsanto Company
800 N. Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63167

sask, too bad. I don't care any longer to hear any "proof" that some additive is safe. They'd lie; many companies have. Teflon was thought to be carcinogenic for many years before the manufacturer, DuPont admitted it. They fought its ban for years and even now, after admitting the dangers, will only phase it out after many years. How many times do we have to believe corporate hogwash? They'll suppress any data if they have to to keep selling what they want to sell. I have the right to know even if there is NO problem. I have the right to decide for myself. Anyway, I seriously doubt that 10 years from now anyone will still be saying that the hormone is safe.

sask... If you are a "human health scientist" (nice sounding claim, no specialty, but lets you be officious), then it's as a paid shill funded by GMO/bio-tech companies. If you were a "human health scientist", one would think you'd have read up on hormones in food and the rising syndrome of "precocious puberty" in US children, mostly girls.

The revolution is on! Fight the CFR's coup, begun on 9/11.
No more government against the people, by the corporations, and for the banks.

Kent, not sure what your point is. All I am saying is that the hormones used to increase milk production are not added to the milk, they are given to the cow to increase milk production. The milk that results is indistinguishable from non-treated cows (exception is slight increase in IGF). There are literally thousands of studies on this. Any elevated levels of IGF in the milk is digested like any other protein. Any levels of hormones in the milk should not differ (according to the studies). Perhaps you are referring the fact that one would expect from 0-10 parts per billion of (naturally occurring) bST (typically less than 1ng/mL) in milk whether the cow was treated or not. If so, then 1 part per billion of bST (or brGH) is really too small an amount to care about (these hormones are not biologically active in humans anyway, so it's moot). Also, pasteurization destroys most (~90%) bST and any that survives digestion cannot bind to human receptors at noted above. I can only speak to the fact this indicates no threat to human health.

If you don't trust the FDA's info try the NIH, or various scientific journals (e.g., JAMA, Science...).

Hope this clarification helps, I see my previous brevity may have created some confusion.

Just because BGH is a naturally occuring hormone and already present in cows, does not mean we ought to be shooting them full of more of it in order to have an increase in the milk. Cows with the "extra" added hormones tend to get more infections which means more antiobiotics which means more risk to the consumer that these antibiotics could get passed on to us. And who drinks the most milk? Children, whose cells are multiplying at much faster rates than us adults.

I have absolutely no academic scientific credentials; however, my family and my husband's family have been or are dairy farmers and farmers know a hell of a lot more about cause and effect of drugs, feed, etc than some lab scientists.

And why on earth would we trust the FDA implicitly? Read the papers, listen to the news, they are not protecting me. FEMA and the CDC didn't pass on information to katrina refugees about the toxic air in those trailers, why would any other government agency be any different. Did the government protect my kids from being fed meat from downer cows in their school lunches? No. And as to scientific journal articles. Fine, but check the funding sources for those findings.

Thundermoon: There is a rather large body of independent evidence available called science. I would encourage you to be critical of industry studies. For example, there are countless examples of independent studies showing drugs to be less effective than drug industry studies. And other examples of some wonderful drugs and technologies. But to distrust all science or to label all science as corporate is not helpful. The point is that there are many independent studies you can examine on any topic.

tobiasaurusrex, you need to chill. Your rant is really not helpful. An argument can be judged on its merits and the evidence. Ad hominem attacks don't contribute to an argument (if you had one, that is). Since you have no interest in either logic or facts, you cannot be helped.

maybe they should consider labelling Basebasll players too?

so lets just put crap into everything to make more money. even if there is NO detectable damages

Man Made HAS to be better than natural doesn't it?

I kinda think ''nature'' does things the best way , but i guess I'm in the minority

billions of years of evolution just can't stack up to 40,000 ( number pulled from air as too lazy to look it up)or so years of man's tinkering in things

Sask I can't refute your arguments, and won'try. The science haters on this site are mostly beyond help. However, I think you pass too easily over an important point. That is, if consumers (how I hate that appelation) do not want milk from cows given this hormone, they should have the right to know which products come from same. Pretty simple, eh?

However, there is another logic that may pre-empt what happens in the supermarket. That is, if dairy farmers profit analysis indicates the cost of the hormone is justified by an increase in production and increased profits, then many farmers will choose to use it, I assume, and which may account for the 22+% usage. This pressure will be countered by consumers increasing preference for food products less dependant on high-tech addatives, whether it is logical or not. (the resulting decrease in use)

The only significant point made by the editorial above is the increased use of antibiotics to combat the incidence of mastitis associated with the use of this hormone. However, being an editorial and not a scientific study, we are not given (from this) what the rate of occurance is for this association.

Mr. Obvious hasn't weighed in on this one yet.

Missouri voters rise up and revolt this turn of events!!
GREED IS SO UGLY, MONSANTO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sask -

I'll assume for the moment that you have the scientific credentials you claim and that your're giving well meaning info on this issue, as you understand it.

The general public is increasingly skeptical about corporate and government claims, and has every reason to be so. Especially when it comes to their food, but hardly limited to food.

More and more, Science is being bought-off by corporations seeking profit at any price. And more and more, this is happening with the collusion government 'regulators' who are either outright corrupt or ideologically opposed to 'tampering' with the so-called free market.

As you must know, there are by now thousands of major lawsuits in which courts have found that injurious and often deadly consumer products were allowed into the market -- negligently and/or knowingly, often with "cigarette science" backing up the profiteers claims of safety.

The public is now all too familiar with this sordid underside of its economic system, and not knowing, any longer, who or what to trust can't be blamed for erring on the side of extreme caution, even cynacism {though average Americans can definietly be blamed for freely electing the
charlatans who run their government...}

If you think that, in this instance, you see evidence of paranoic skepticism, or even sub-clinical hysteria on the part of the consuming public, don't blame it on the consumers. While the the average citizen's inattention to good government may have enabled the problem to get our of control, they didn't initiate the lack-of-trust problem, no do they initiate the manufacturing actions that can and still do harm them.

Uncontrolled corporations and the actions of greed driven corporate managers have caused this lack of public consumer trust: cultivated economic sociopaths whose moral derangement is now officially legitimated by those very government chieftans and lawmakers they have, like Science and the News Media, also bought-off.

Humans will probably always do bad things to each other, even under a saner economic system. But under the America's present system, social and physical unjury is unnecessarily magnified: the corporate bad guys are usually rewarded for creating profit through harm to others - while those who are harmed are told to either eat Caveat Emptor or just shut-up.

I think the 'milk problem' needs to be seen in this wider reality.

Cows have been giving milk for perhaps a few thousand years without Monsanto's help.

And do we really need "scientific studies" to bolster any claims?

What no one needs is evil forces like Monsanto. Good riddance, and may the time to say that come soon.

I appreciate the thoughtful comments of Vince and Zounds. I realize the article is about the right to be informed. However, many specious arguments are made in the editorial along with some sketchy links and inferences that somehow human health is at risk. You are correct that the consumer can only be frightened by an editorial (or a news story) like this. This distracts from real health threats like smoking, or not wearing a seatbelt, or high blood pressure... That is why I put in my 2 cents, knowing full well I would get flamed by those who are not really interested a rational discussion.

There is no doubt that corporate money is a double edged sword. I feel it working at a Canadian university. I can only imagine that this is more salient in the US. Government giveaways to corporations are a real threat to public institutions and independent research whose funding erodes at the same time. Nevertheless, much of science is independently funded and operated and health researchers are obligated to disclose sources of funding. It is not necessary to rely on 'corporate science' as implied by some of the above posts.

Finally, I forgot one of the main lessons I learned from teach an introductory health education class for a number of years. Anecdotally, nothing gets someone more fired up than criticizing their food choices (e.g., that potato is fine, it won't make you fat).

Sask: The truth is hard to gague due to the fact that Monsanto frequently publishes false and misleading information. All the Monsanto funded studies say it's perfectly safe... independent studies say otherwise...

http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book/companion.asp?id=7&compID=119&page=3

sask: I can't tell whether you're playing a very dry witted devil's advocate, or whether you actually believe the monstrously subtle deceptions you pen.

The inherent underlying assumption of corporate governance is to increase profit for the shareholder no matter what the harm to others to the full legal and marketing extent that they can get away with it. It's pretty clear what the implication of that is going to be when the interests of human and animal welfare clash with the profit interests of the corporation and for the scientist rewarded by the corporation for ingenuity.

So who is it you work for?

There are science haters on here? Interesting. Many of us who are skeptical of the Monsantos of the world are not science haters, we just want to know what's in our food. I want to know if someone injected extra betacarotene in my carrots-I don't CARE if it's deemed "safe" by the FDA. I want to know if the flour I consume is from a GM seed. The real question here is...

Why shouldn't the public know what their food is made from?

We need to start "grow-your-own" more of what we consume to get away from this epidemic of "genetically altered crap."

sask,

Two more points:

1) Labeling milk hormone-free is not silly in the way that labeling potato chips cholesterol-free is, because the chips did not develop in the body of a cholesterol-laced animal.

2) There are ethical reasons, as well as heath reasons narrowly understood, for shunning milk from hormone-laced animals. Many of us think this practice bespeaks a repulsive attitude toward the natural world, according to which other animals are nothing but objects that exist to be exploited by humans in any way we wish.

I like to know what's in what I consume. I avoid buying dairy products, milk and cheese, because of all the toxic unknows. My body thanks me. Now for all the 'toxic unkowns' in my bond holdings...Government Approval is a real kiss of death.

"It is hard to understand why a family-farm state such as Missouri would want to interfere with supply and demand to protect a failing product."

Never underestimate North Americans' ability to just do what they're told.

Good posts: THUNDERMOON, RECYCLE 1 & ZOUNDS

One problem in the "science" versus "speculation" debate is that our bodies are now forced to process SO MANY unnatural things. Our system of law is based on producing a preponderance of evidence that strongly suggests proof of culpability before legal action can be taken. In a climate of so many trespassers, a great many chemicals in our food and water (remember the recent exposure of all of big pharma's nice cocktails in our drinking water?)it is IMPOSSIBLE to isolate which one is the singular offender. Thus the entire release of hormones, antibiotics, chemical polymers, pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, etc muddy the mix and compromise health.

Cancer rates are high. Childhood diabetes is rising. Kids are getting fatter. Sure, the lack of exercise, field work, walking to school factors in, but so, too, do all the SHIT they put into food to increase shelf life and profit. How about all the depression, the alcoholism, the substance abuse? Are people being NOURISHED by what they eat? Advertising has tried to suggest that ITS products trump the REAL thing and for many that has worked. Is McDonald's french fries, soda or milk shake and burger really a happy meal; or will it make a kid fat and drastically compromise his or her social life?

We do have a right to know what's in our food, and if our FDA and DEA and all the other 3-letter'd organizations represented the people and public health rather than answer to their paying sponsors, we MIGHT be truly educated and protected from what is being done to us in the way of slowly compromising public health. (Authorities also told downwinders the radiation released from nuclear tests was safe; and that NY after 911 had OK air quality, and the list goes on and on and on.)

Even though I was raised on a dairy farm, I never cared much for milk, having witnessed the ugly aspects of its production first hand.

In fact, no other mammal in the world continues to drink their own mother's milk after the weaning process, when animals seem to know instinctively that it's time for their young to switch to another diet. Milk is intended to nourish the young at the earliest stages of life when their growth rates are much more rapid than they will be beyond that point. The milk produced by the mother naturally declines after several months as well, unless the mother become pregnant again. Nature has obviously intended mother's milk specifically for only a brief period of time specific the very earliest stages of the lives of their young.

Other mammals seem to be much wiser than humans in realizing that proper weaning is vital for the health of their offspring. People complicate matters even further, in that what they are drinking does not even derive from their own species.

If people were to remain true to their species, they would limit themselves to human milk, however, the supply would be very limited and the costs quite high (and there would be the matter of diverting mother's milk from the baby for whom such nourishment is needed and appropriate). Since fat is the vehicle that delivers the flavor, elephant seal (pinniped) milk, at 55% fat, would presumably be the most flavorful, however, due to limited supply (anyone who has observed them in the wild would quickly realize the challenges with regard to domesticating them), it would be a luxury, not unlike saffron or caviar.

With the dairy industry, we are again witnessing another sad attempt by homo sapiens to "improve" upon nature, ignoring those long-term costs which greatly outweigh any temporary benefits that might accrue.

I quit consuming dairy products altogether three years ago (cheese, ice cream and buttered popcorn were an adjustment, at least initially), and after getting through the first few weeks, found that I'd lost any interest in resuming my old diet. Fortunately, many healthier (and better tasting) substitutes are now available.

I buy organic milk and eggs. They cost a little more but my family considers it worth the added expense. We also grow an organic garden. I don't trust corporate America either, but -
Wouldn't buying organic solve this problem?

I drive 45 minutes (each way) to pick up milk, eggs, cheese, and butter once a month. Milk is $13 a gallon, eggs $6 a dozen, buttter $8 a pound plus a $25 delivery charge (milk comes from another part of the state). I am on gov. disability so funds are extremely limited, but I use my limited funds to purchase from a real farmer who only grass feeds his cattle. I'll go without a whole lot (clothes, cable tv restaurants, etc.) so I don't have to worry about what shit is in my milk. Too bad so many other people won't.

Buying organic milk and eggs may help to avoid problems associated with fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, and other assorted toxins. This, of course, depends upon the establishment and consistent enforcement of reasonable standards that must be met to label a product as "organic." Large food companies realize the potential profits in this area, and seem to be constantly attempting to "bend" the rules, loosening these standards to maximize their profits while still labeling their products as "organic."
Purchasing these products requires some degree of faith in the farmers, as well as the those who process the products, the regulations in place, the degree to which those regulations are followed, and the likelihood that violations of these regulations will be identified and corrected.

In a perfect world, purchasing organic dairy and egg products would eliminate some potential complications, however, there are many others that would remain unaddressed. For more information, please see...

http://www.earthsave.org/health/what_about_dairy.htm
http://veg.ca/content/view/131/112/

I'm interested to know who Sask works for also:

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/rbgh2.cfm

There is a very informative site called www.notmilk.com that includes extensive research on all the issues concerning milk. The way the researcher got started was that he asked Monsanto for information on the BGH studies. They refused and he had to obtain it through legal means.

Sask, if this stuff is so safe why is Monsanto so secretive about it?
here is an excerpt from one of his articles:

After investigation one of those so-called independent
authorities, the Journal of the American Medical Association
(JAMA), I learned that the two authors of a JAMA study
(Volume 264;8, 8/22/90) both worked for Monsanto.
JAMA reported:

"From 1984 to 1986, Dr. Daughaday was the recipient of a
research contract from Monsanto Company, a small fraction
of which was paid to Dr. Daughaday as a consulting fee."

I learned that his co-author, David Barbano, also
worked for Monsanto. These authorities were not independent.

SCIENCE magazine confirmed a difference in their 8/24/90
edition:

"Recombinant rbGH treatment produces an increase in the
concentration of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I)
in cow's milk."

The World Health Organization also confirmed my fears,
and contradicted media reports:

"After somidobove (rbGH) injection, mean IGF-I levels in
the treated milk are always higher than those found in the
controls."

Even the National Institutes of Health confirmed the lie
in their December, 1990 National Institutes of Health
Assessment of Bovine Somatotropin:

"Levels of IGF increase in milk after cows are treated with
rbGH."

The following sixteen references together support sixteen
converging laser-like beams of evidence, focusing their
pinpoint light upon America's 21st century cancer fuel.

"A strong positive association was observed between
IGF-I levels and prostate cancer risk."

Science, vol. 279. January 23, 1998
________________________________

"Insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I, a mitogenic and
antiapoptotic peptide, can affect the proliferation of
breast epithelial cells, and is thought to have a role in
breast cancer."

The Lancet, vol. 351. May 9, 1998
________________________________

"Insulin-like growth factors (IGFs), in particular IGF-I and
IGF-II, strongly stimulate the proliferation of a variety of
cancer cells, including those from lung cancer. High plasma
levels of IGF-I were associated with an increased risk of
lung cancer. Plasma levels of IGF-I are higher...in patients
with lung cancer than in control subjects."

Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 91, no. 2.
January 20, 1999.
________________________________

"Insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) is expressed in many
tumor cell lines and has a role in both normal cell
proliferation and in the growth of cancers.

Cancer Gene Ther, 2000 Mar, 7:3
________________________________

"The insulin-like growth factor (IGF) system is widely
involved in human carcinogenesis. A significant association
between high circulating IGF-I concentrations and an
increased risk of lung, colon, prostate and pre-menopausal
breast cancer has recently been reported. Lowering plasma
IGF-I may thus represent an attractive strategy to be
pursued..."

Int J Cancer, 2000 Aug, 87:4, 601-5
________________________________

"...serum IGF-I levels increased significantly in the milk
drinking group, an increase of about 10% above baseline-but
was unchanged in the control group."

Journal of the American Dietetic Association, vol. 99, no.
10. October 1999
__________________________________

"Human Insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I) and bovine IGF-I
are i dentical. Both contain 70 amino acids in the identical
sequence."

Judith C. Juskevich and C. Greg Guyer. SCIENCE, vol. 249.
August 24, 1990.
____________________________________________

"IGF-I is critically involved in the aberrant growth of
human breast cancer cells."

M. Lippman. J. Natl. Inst. Health Res., 1991, 3.
____________________________________________

"Estrogen regulation of IGF-I in breast cancer cells would
support the hypothesis that IGF-I has a regulatory function
in breast cancer."

A.V. Lee, Mol-Cell- Endocrinol., March, 99(2).
____________________________________________

"IGF-I is a potent growth factor for cellular proliferation
in the human breast carcinoma cell line."

J.C. Chen, J-Cell-Physiol., January, 1994, 158(1)
____________________________________________

"Insulin-like growth factors are key factors for breast
cancer growth."

J.A. Figueroa, J-Cell-Physiol., Nov., 1993, 157(2)
____________________________________________

"IGF-I produces a 10-fold increase in RNA levels of cancer
cells. IGF-I appears to be a critical component in cellular
proliferation."

X.S. Li, Exp-Cell-Res., March, 1994, 211(1)
____________________________________________

"IGF-I plays a major role in human breast cancer cell
growth."

E.A. Musgrove, Eur-J-Cancer, 29A (16), 1993
____________________________________________

"IGF-I has been identified as a key factor in breast
cancer."

Hankinson. The Lancet, vol. 351. May 9, 1998
____________________________________________

"Serum IGF-I levels increased significantly in milk
drinkers, an increase of about 10% above baseline but was
unchanged in the control group."

Robert P. Heaney, Journal of the American Dietetic
Association, vol. 99, no. 10. October 1999
____________________________________________

"IGF-1 accelerates the growth of breast cancer cells."

M. Lippman Science, Vol. 259, January 29, 1993

Was it biotechnology which increased IGF-I levels
in dairy products, or was it the increased consumption
rate of concentrated dairy products such as cheese and
ice cream? I believe that we've suffered a double
whammy effect. Cancer and dairy products have one
thing in common. The delivery mechanism of powerful
growth hormones which make cancers grow.

Check out www.monsantowatch.org if you think Monsanto has any goal beside their bottom line. They do, domination of the food supplies of the Globe.

If you're talking about:
Persecuting Small Family Farmers,
Bovine Growth Hormone,
PCBs, Agent Orange,
Poisoning the Third World,
Roundup Pesticide,
Water Privatization,
Genetically Engineered Crops,
or Farm Bankruptcies,
you're talking about
the Monsanto Corporation.

I agree with those on this post that milk intended for calves isn't needed by humans in the first place. It amazes me that people continue to be duped by ad campaigns extolling the "virtues" of cow's milk. Why would we ever elect to latch on to the teats of a cow to receive our nourishment? With so many animal products, breaking down the scenario of how we would actually acquire and consume them inevitably calls up disgust on the part of normal human being. Would we catch a chicken with our bare hands, tear off it's head with our teeth and munch down on the raw flesh? - but that's a true carnivore and the "natural" way to eat meat.
It's only because we have established a distance between certain products and ourselves that we are able to tolerate them. Milk doesn't come out of the teats of cows, it comes in sleek plastic packaging. Meat isn't torn from the bodies of dead animals, it appears in neat homogenous rows of brightly advertised wraps. Most of us don't even know how the products arrived in the supermarket. Everything is just magically "here", in it's natural state of advertising.
So do we trust people who repackage things for profit? In my opinion, no - not ever. We should try to obtain food that is as close to it's original state as possible - fresh vegetables, fruits, raw grains and beans that we cook ourselves. If we do buy packaged food, we should consider carefully what's in the package and make the best choice. There are plenty of substitutes for cow's milk. Soy milk, as well as other types of milk, can be made at home. Otherwise, there are packaged products that are acceptable, even quite delicious. I just found that almond milk has a wonderful taste and works well in all my recipes. It's also high in calcium and doesn't have the cholesterol or fat of cow's milk (none of the antibiotics or hormones - nor any of the animal cruelty).

COLLINSA-a good friend was diagnosed with breast cancer over the holidays and she swears by almond milk for baking/cooking and in her cereal. She cannot have regular cow's milk or soy b/c one of her cancers is (and I'm sure I don't have this quite right) an estrogen growing one and soy has an estrogen-type chemical in it.

I don't drink much cow's milk, eat cheese or ice cream, myself, but my kids do-I pay the extra for the ones labelled from cows without added rBGH. It isn't organic, so the cost is only about 30 cents more (but we live in Wisconsin, major dairy state). I also found they like soy milk as long as it is flavored or in something.

CURMUGEON-My husband grew up on a dairy farm and can't stand milk either. He was the driving force behind our family starting to buy organic and to stop using herbicides on our lawn years ago.

I don't really care if you want to now what is in or is not in a product. I don't care if it isn't reported if it is a waste of time. I don't care about Monsanto. Why do I care if my potato chips have no transfats, if they are potatoes and don't have any anyway? The milk thing has the potential of creating angst and confusion in consumers. One of my main areas of expertise is health fraud, from the q-ray to homeopathy to certain chiropractic claims, and yes, drug claims, and health scares. I am just an average university professor from an average university. I am quite ignorant about the politics of Monsanto. I can only review the science, and there is a great deal of research on this topic and Monsanto has only done some of it.

Again, my concern is that people will avoid a perfectly healthy food or other treatment because of some nonsense like trace amounts of IGF-1 in milk, that mostly gets digested anyway, like any other protein (there are some rat studies showing exceptions; humans are a little different than rats). The milk thing is fairly innocuous, because you can survive without milk, even though it is damn good for most of us. What about the victims of a faith healer who forgoes usual treatment? These things are related under the general rubric of health fraud.

It is easy to pick and choose quotes from journal articles to scare people. It is even easy to find several articles supporting a particular position. Concensus is what matters in science. obmaj has done a masterful job of trying to deceive you. Either this person is lying or ignorant of science. As noted previously, it is well know that IGF-1 is higher in the milk of cows treated with rbGH. The health effects on humans are probably nil (I am always open to new and better evidence). Today, basic physiology and research shows that ingesting IGF-1 (at the levels found in milk) has no bearing on human health. Therefore the implied links between milk IGF and IGF in humans is certainly exaggerated. None of your quotes show any link between rbGH milk and IGF-1 IN humans. Although, I would expect possible, but biologically meaningless increases in IGF-1 after ingesting milk (or maybe not, see below).

Some research shows some increase in IGF-1 in humans as a results of ingesting milk, in general. Some studies show low fat milk reduces IGF-1 in humans and reduces colorectal cancer (# 1 cancer killer if you don't smoke). Of course, this has to do with milk, and not labeling of milk, since the rbGH is not relevant in this case. You can be forgiven for lacking expertise in physiology, but you cannot be forgiven for ignoring scientific concensus and promoting a health scare.

If you don't believe in scientific concensus then how do you decide if it is a problem to teaching creationism instead of evolution? What about the clear consensus around global warming being very bad and caused by humans?

Unfortunately this topic is too complicated to go on about here.
For those of you who are generally interested, I think these articles are helpful in addressing many forgivable misunderstandings. They are on breast cancer and milk and, but they do describe some of the proposed mechanisms mentioned above:

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/31/1/78
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/1/5
http://www.jacn.org/cgi/reprint/24/suppl_6/556S

My brother was allergic to penicillin after being treated with severe pneumonia. He was not allowed to drink milk or eat chicken because he would have a reaction to the antibiotic residues. Sask, your posts are selective and your reluctance to present all the facts is disheartening.

Should read for not with....oops.

Vince - Here's my "weigh in". Sorry I have been busy getting ready for Spring planting.

If sellers want to label any food with a truthful and varifiable fact, I have no problem with this. Why is this different than labeling food as kosher or organic? Neither has any varifiable advantage for the buyer, but that is not the point. What advantage do blue corn chips have for the consumer? It is simply a marketing ploy, and as long as it is true, what is the problem. If milk is lablelled as not being from cows treated with supplimental hormones, who is harmed except an informed consumer who pays more for nothing? Now if you want the FDA to require those using a proven safe product, to label milk with a useless label, then I have a problem. Look - We let people sell pet rocks, so where is the problem? In a free society, people are free to do stupid things as well as smart things. In this case, the sellers are smart and the buyers are stupid, but not letting this to happen is a violation of our freedoms.

Treefrog, it is not possible to write a 30 page paper here. Also, your claim that I am being selective is completely unsupported. The three review articles I posted include numerous references to studies and represent typical scientific articles on this particular topic. I will not speak to every side topic like penicillin, or lactose intolerance, or anything else off topic due to space.

I generally agree with Mr Obvious. Feel free to waste your money if you want. If you prefer to be uninformed, so be it. One company will benefit over another, and your health won't suffer, in this case. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

If you ignore everything said here then maybe you have a point, there are a lot of studies on this subject that indicate things like the epithelium cells of intestines being affected negatively, or IGA levels in saliva, correlations to chronic illness. The bottom line is that people do not, I repeat DO NOT WANT THIS CRAP.