Ruling in Ohio has Allowed Hormone-Free Milk Labeling
|
|
6 October 2010 | posted by: Martin Shaffer | One Comment
It is obvious that some cows in the United States are treated with hormones that are genetically engineered towards increasing their milk production. The hormones in use are aptly banned in many countries across the world. Ohio Allows Labeling for Hormone-Free Milk While Hormones Found to Cause Acute Mastitis In some states in the US, they are not allowed to label milk as hormone free for those cows not yet treated with the hormone. However, Ohio was once like these states but a court decision has overturned recently the ban. A very significant move expected to have the hormone makers firing back any time soon. The hormones are known as Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone or rBGH in short, and another one is the Recombinant Bovine Somototrophin shortened rBST. They are synthetically engineered and increase a cow’s period of lactation. Since each of the cows produce a lot of milk, a farmer thus requires a few cows to fulfill his demand after using rBGH. The court ruling in Ohio in a sense means that corporations must allow milk that doesn’t have the hormone be labeled as such, for instance rBGH-free. In the case, it was determined a difference indeed exists between milk from rBGH cows and milk from cows not yet treated with the hormone. Some of differences that are caused by rBGH include milk with increased fat and a decrease in levels of proteins while calves grow with deformities. It also correlates with increased cases of mastitis that might lead to pus and blood entering the milk. An increase in production also increases stress on a cow. rBGH is banned in Japan, Most areas of Europe, New Zealand, Australia and Canada. Image Credit: |
I’m a U.S. dairy producer and want to provide some accurate information in response to this story. All milk contains the same quantity of hormones regardless if the cow was supplemented with rbST. bST (bovine somatotropin) is a protein hormone produced in the pituitary gland of cattle and is present in milk of all cows.
The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) review of rbST took 9 years. The FDA approved rbST in 1993 and it was first sold in 1994. Before rbST was approved by the FDA, more than 120 studies were conducted – all showing that rbST poses no risk to human health.
rbST is recognized as safe around the world. There are no import restrictions by any country for dairy products from the U.S. where cows can be supplemented with rbST. It’s true that some foreign governments don’t allow their farmers to use rbST, but it’s more likely a quantity control issue vs a food safety issue. Governments in places like the European Community heavily subsidize their farmers and don’t want increased milk production.
rbST technology has been extensively researched by many animal and human health organizations and there never has been one documented harmful effect to people. Supplementing cows with rbST does not change the composition, nutrition or safety of the milk.
It’s very curious that the three judges who overturned Ohio’s milk labeling rule have determined there are “compositional differences” in milk from cows supplemented with rbST. All the scientific research conducted in the last 25 years shows there are no significant differences in milk from cows supplemented with rbST.
In fact, there is no way to determine if milk is from cows supplemented with rbST because bST is a naturally occurring hormone in all cows.
The two organizations pushing the court for this ruling are milk processor groups who stand to gain big financially by telling consumers their milk is “rBST-Free”. There is no difference in the milk but processors want consumers to believe there is a difference so they can charge more for their products.
Leave your response!