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.â€Â 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.Â
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.Â
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 Â
Â