Organic Milk
Is It Really Safer?
By Daniel Muniz

So what’s the big deal about organic milk? Is it more nutritious, healthier or taste better? However, the biggest reason people often cite is that organic milk is safer because no hormones have been added to it. After all, “artificial” hormones are supposed to be dangerous. But how much validity is there to this claim?

Promised Land is one brand of organic milk and it has some interesting assertions. The label of its milk container states:

No Artificial Hormones
Our Jersey cows are not treated with rBST or rBGH

Their web site also states the following:

We have chosen not to inject the cows that provide our milk with artificial hormones, rBGH or rBST. We believe in doing things naturally as Mother Nature would.

Only approved medications are used on our herds. The cows are not allowed to return to the milking line until all medications have cleared their system and they are healthy and happy cows.

The herds are not injected with artificial hormones. We believe a healthy herd, fed an all natural diet, produces the best milk. Many, perhaps most, dairies inject their cows with recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone, rBGH or rBST. These artificial hormones are used to increase milk production.

Okay, so everything is all natural, therefore, it must be better. But does this “natural” milk mean that it is safer than regular milk? And if these hormones are indeed so harmful, then why haven’t they been banned from our supermarkets? After all, we have a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that is supposed to be looking out for our welfare so shouldn’t they be doing something to protect us?

Well, actually the FDA did do something. On the same Promised Land milk container label as well as on their web site is the following statement:

The Federal Government has determined there is no significant difference in the milk from rBST and rBGH treated and untreated cows.

Their web site goes on to say the following:

You can become informed by a search on the internet for rBST or rBGH, reading both side of the issue.

Wait a minute, what is going on here? Aren’t these hormones supposed to be dangerous?

Promised Land and other organic dairy farmers curiously use the word “artificial” in their description of rBST and rBGH. Recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) and recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) is produced by the Monsanto Company under the brand name Posilac. Below is an interesting description of this “artificial” growth hormone:

Posilac prevents mammary cell death in dairy cattle. As such, it does not increase milk production on a day-to-day basis, but rather prevents milk production from decreasing over the long term, thus resulting in higher overall production during lactation. Because a cow’s milk production increases and decreases during her lactation based upon a known curve, application of Posilac can be carefully planned to maximize results.

Okay, the hormone doesn’t increase milk production directly; it just prevents its decrease. Continuing that description:

Since November 1993, with FDA approval, Monsanto has been selling recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST)--or rBGH--to dairy farmers. Additional bovine growth hormone is administered to cattle in order to increase their milk production, though the hormone also naturally fosters liver production of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1). The deposit thereof in the milk of rBGH-affected cattle has been the source of concern; however, all milk contains IGF1 since all milking cows produce bovine growth hormone naturally.

So that’s why organic dairy farmers over-emphasize the word “artificial” because this hormone already occurs naturally in cows. In other words, their organic milk already has this hormone in it. Consequently, what these milk producers are claiming is that they are not adding anything else to what a cow already has in their physiology.

But the real problem with this “supposed” danger is that after volumes of rigid scientific research performed by numerous university studies, nothing has really turned up that makes these “artificial” hormones harmful to human consumption. And regardless of all the chatter from environmentalists and other activists, there is no danger. There are not millions of people who have grown a horn out of their forehead or an extra limb or another eye.

In fact, the FDA has struck back not only at organic farmers but also at so many other charlatans who are twisting or fabricating nonsense by requiring them to post such disclaimers on their products.

For example, Starkist which markets the highly popular Chunk Light Tuna has the logo of the American Heart Association on its packaging. This logo says that this product is a “Natural Source of Omega-3” and “Meets American Heart Association food criteria for saturated fat and cholesterol for healthy people over age 2.”

However, the packaging also has the following disclaimer on it:

Supportive but not conclusive research shows that consumption of EPA and DHA Omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease.

Again, even though there is so much chatter about how healthy and good for your heart fish oils are, there isn’t enough definitive proof to claim that it can prevent a heart attack. Tuna may be a tasty source of nutrition but it may not improve heart health.

The real issue with organic milk as well as with other organic products is that they have hijacked the word “natural” and manipulated its meaning to imply that anything that is “natural” or “organic” has to be healthier, safer, tastier, more nutritious, and better for the environment. The real problem is just because something says “organic” on its label now means that some people don’t have to do any thinking. And when people stop using critical thought and skepticism, then they can be duped into believing anything.

Granted, it is a great marketing ploy for organic farmers to claim that food which is not produced organically must be a health hazard and that only their products are the safest for human consumption. But these amazing claims are not true. As a result, the FDA has gone to great lengths to require such vendors to post disclaimers on their packaging so that the public is not deceived. The deception still goes on but at least the government has done its part to inform the public and that ought to be the limit of that role because people should still be free to purchase these products.

As for organic milk, until scientific research proves otherwise, it is nothing more than snake oil that elitists and the unsuspecting are willing to spend extra money to buy. Perhaps some day something will come up to validate this claim but until then, organic milk is not any different except for a higher price, than the cheaper milk jug that is sitting in the freezer section of the supermarket.

Any opinions or views expressed herein belong solely to the author and does not represent any employer, organization, political party, governmental agency, or any other entity and do not necessarily reflect the views of the site owner or its participants.