A recent SF Chronicle article was so outrageous in its sloppy reporting on the decision by the California Dairy Association’s decision to stop accepting milk from cows treated with rBST that I fired off a note to the reporter. The note in its entirety is here.

Your article noted that “the European Union, Japan, Canada and Australia did not approve rbST. The reasons included questions about human and animal safety, as well social and economic considerations.”  In fact, cow health and trade protectionism were the sole reasons for their bans – NOT human health concerns (they could cite none, so they didn’t). rBST is scale-neutral, so it benefits small farmers just as much as large – but if you already have too much milk because of government subsidies (as in Europe and Canada), then more milk means more government $ to farmers. So it’s easier and far cheaper to simply NOT approve the technology on “economic and cow health” concerns. Most importantly, the claim about IGF-1 is an absurd distortion of human cancer science and it was terribly irresponsible of you to include this sham claim. The legitimate concern is levels of human-produced IGF-1 in our bodies, which has been identified as a risk factor for cancer – though much work remains to be done. Certain diets result in higher IGF-1 levels in our blood and higher cancer rates. We don’t know why. However, the amount of IGF-1 consumed in our diet is irrelevant (it is digested like any other protein) and any cancer researcher working on IGF-1 will explain this to you. 

Also a sham is the antibiotics claim. 100% of all milk is tested for traces of antibiotics and any positive test requires that the milk be discarded. Because milk is tested at least 2 times prior to bottling/sale, there is less than a 1/10,000 chance of buying milk with a detectable trace of antibiotic in it. There is zero evidence that antibiotic use in dairy cows is linked to any resistant infections in humans of any kind. Your reporting, if responsible, would have at least superficially attempted to debunk the fully discredited “early puberty” accusation. In fact, the only consumer product that has been shown to cause signs of early puberty is lavender oil – reported by NIEHS scientists last year. Seven to ten year-old boys using lavender-containing soaps and lotions developed breasts! Your thin attempts at “balance” were half-hearted and inadequate given the amount of serious science that has been lodged at these decade-old fear scams by anti-technology activists (none of these claims has been raised by legitimate health groups). It is sad when reporting becomes a litany of irresponsible and libelous claims without any honest attempt at finding the truth and reality. If this is the state of reportage in our country, there is little hope for future technological advances of any sort – as all one has to do to stop them dead in their tracks is make up wild and scary claims in opposition. Lazy or irresponsible reporters will be sure to repeat them, thereby elevating them to “truth” in the minds of the readers, and rendering the technology unacceptable on innuendo alone. 

Bottom line: I could give you a glass of milk of any sort (organic, conventional, conventional from rbST-treated cow) and the most well-equipped lab on planet earth could NOT tell you which type of operation the milk was produced under. Why? Because THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE MILK!!!!!!! (How many times does this have to be said before it sinks home?) Disappointed,  Alex Avery  

 

By Alex Avery

The research facts and scientific evidence was already clear; but a new puberty study from the University of Michigan C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital reinforces what medical experts already know about early puberty in children – that it simply cannot be caused by things like bovine growth hormones (bST/bGH) found naturally in milk or influenced in any way when cows get supplemental bST, but this rare condition is linked to kids’ size, more specifically their body mass index or BMI. Obesity, not milk, is linked to precocious or early onset of puberty.

In the March issue of the journal Pediatrics, the researchers reveal that a higher body mass index (BMI) score in girls as young as age 3, and large increases in BMI between 3 years of age and first grade are associated with earlier puberty, defined as the presence of breast development by age 9. This longitudinal study is unique in that it included girls younger than age 5 to examine the association between weight status and timing of puberty.

“Our finding that increased body fatness is associated with the earlier onset of puberty provides additional evidence that growing rates of obesity among children in this country may be contributing to the trend of early maturation in girls,” says lead author and U-M pediatric endocrinologist Joyce Lee, M.D, MPH.

Studies have suggested that girls in the United States are entering puberty at younger ages today than they were 30 years ago, says Lee. Since rates of childhood obesity also have significantly increased during the same time period, researchers have speculated that childhood obesity may be contributing to a trend of earlier puberty in girls.

Researchers from groups like the National Research Center for Women & Families and other academic experts have published extensively on this subject; however, activist groups like The Organic Consumers Association and the natural product marketing groups which fund them continue to make claims linking early puberty to milk and bovine growth hormone continue while the experts clearly call them “untrue.” The Washington Post and New York Times have reported extensively on the safety of rBST. In an October 2003 article on the alleged milk link to early puberty published by the Washington Post exposed the flaws “with the rBGH and early puberty theory: Children today drink markedly less milk than they did a generation or two ago. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), milk consumption among girls ages 6 to 11 dropped by about one-third from the late 1970s to the late 1990s.

“Not only is there no evidence” that rBGH affects human growth, says Paul Kaplowitz, the new chief of endocrinology at Children’s National Medical Center and a specialist in the issue of early puberty, “it’s not even scientifically possible.” Kaplowitz, who subscribes to the increased body fat theory, has little patience for those who blame hormone-treated cow’s milk. “I’m really at a loss as to where this connection comes from,” he says. “People are always eager to find environmental culprits for early puberty. It’s a very emotional thing with a lot of people.” 

There is really no evidence to support the advocacy claims about milk and puberty — claims often used by dairy marketers seeking to scare consumers into buying higher priced organic or organic-lite milk. Extensive research and basic medical science show milk and bovine growth hormones are safe and they simply cannot cause early puberty.

More support for what I have been saying all along. Milk is milk. Enjoy.

Here’s a great article from Sandy Szwarc.

The full article can be found at JunkFood Science.

Best, Alex

Excerpt…