The new standards apply to labeling about rBST, an artificial growth hormone. Only milk produced entirely without the use of artificial hormones can make that claim.

However, any claims by producers that they don’t inject their cows with artificial hormones must be accompanied by a disclaimer that the milk is no more safe to drink than that from injected cows.

Whatever.

I’m not a big cow’s milk fan. I switched to soy milk ages ago. Probably right after I read the article in Eating Well magazine that pointed out the amount of puss found in milk due to the use of antibiotics and increase in antibiotic-resistant infections in most herds.

Ew.

Knowing whether or not you are getting some extra doses of rBST (recombinant bovine somatotropin) or artificial growth hormones is important because these hormones, like most hormones, can affect your fertility.

When the U.S. Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry explored rBST in 1999, they found:

no significant risk to human safety associated with the consumption of products from animals to which rBST had been administered.

But in the next paragraph of their report, they admit,

The panel assessing the implications of rBST on animal health, however, found “an increased risk of mastitis of up to 25%, of infertility by 18%, and of lameness by up to 50%. These increased risks and overall reduced body condition lead to a 20-25% increased risk of culling from the herd.”

So, if rBST directly affects the cows that ingest it, doesn’t it logically follow that any byproducts of those animals are also at risk?

If I did believe that Milk, it Does a Body Good, (which I don’t) I would be relieved that PA has finally joined other states, like Vermont, that think the logical thing to do is tell consumers what they are ingesting.

Thanks, Ed. I mean that.

Post from: Blisstree

You Mean You’ll Actually Tell Us What We’re Drinking Now? Gee Thanks.