“Whitewashing”
Widely Distributed Article Attempted to Steer Consumers Away from Organic Milk with Misinformation
By Chrys Ostrander
©2006
Sales of organic milk are surging as consumers vote with their pocketbooks for more wholesome dairy products for their families based on their appreciation of the positive selling points of organic food. This growing trend is accompanied by organic milk brands showing up in mainstream grocery stores across the US (at times being the only organic product sold at some stores), demand straining the fledgling organic dairy sector’s ability to satisfy it and producers of organic milk being paid significantly more for their milk than producers of non-organic milk. The trend is not lost on worried producers and distributors of non-organic milk who are losing market share to consumers who are undoubtedly questioning the quality and safety of their non-organic products. Might the non-organic dairy industry have an interest in trying to burst the organic milk bubble?
In an August 15 article “Organic Milk Health Claims Not Supported by Science”
distributed by the American Institute for Cancer Research and carried by MSNBC and numerous other news outlets, author and nutritionist Karen Collins makes some sweeping statements in an attempt to punch holes in the sense of security that consumers of organic milk hold dear regarding their reasons for choosing organic milk for themselves and their families. However, many of the claims she makes disparaging organic milk health claims and reassuring consumers about the safety of non-organic milk are themselves not supported by science.
Artificial Genetically Engineered Bovine Growth Hormone: Is it safe?
Collins begins her article with an attempt to calm consumer fears about genetically modified recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH). rBGH is used by non-organic dairy farmers to increase milk production by artificially increasing the bovine growth hormone in the cows. Sold solely by Monsanto under the Posilac brand name, the artificial hormone is injected in cows every two weeks. Monsnato estimated, before the slide away from rBGH milk began, that about 1/3 of the nation’s 9 million dairy cows received regular injections if the substance. The FDA, in a widely criticized ruling, stated in 1993 that there was no substantive difference between milk produced with rBGH and un-treated milk, but public acceptance has always been shaky. rBGH is strictly prohibited in the production of organic milk.
Collins states “BGH is a protein hormone, which means that if any does appear in milk, enzymes and acid in our digestive tract destroy it.”
The Oregon chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility (OPSR) responded to erroneous and misleading statements Collins made in the article regarding the routine use of rBGH, which increases a cow’s volume of milk production on many non-organic dairy far The use of rBGH is prohibited on organic dairy farms. OPSR conducted three years of intensive research on the health risks associated with the wide-spread use of rBGH. In their comment on the Collins article, they refute her attempt to minimize concern over the use of rBGH:
“It is well known that rBGH increases levels [in cows] of another growth hormone, IGF-1, which is identical in cows and humans. At elevated levels, IGF-1 is known to increase cancer rates in humans. [Professor at Cornell] Dale Bauman’s point [quoted in the Collins article] that the body produces more IGF-1 than is taken in by dietary factors is accurate, as far as it goes. But he completely ignores the fact that even small additional amounts of hormones can have significant effects on human health. Moreover, there is much that it is still unknown about IGF-1, especially long-term effects of drinking large quantities of milk at a young age. Finally, Collins’ statement that milk consumption is not related to blood levels of IGF-1 is simply incorrect. Several peer-reviewed studies have demonstrated this…” OPSR also pointed out that “Dale Bauman was a developer of rBGH and was funded by Monsanto, the hormone’s only manufacturer. This is an obvious bias that was never disclosed in Collins’ report.”
Within the last year, it’s important to note, several large dairy processing companies including Dean Foods, Tillamook, Darigold, Wilcox and Hood, have publicly announced they will stop accepting rBGH milk at all or selected processing facilities and the trend seems to be moving in the direction of less and less rBGH milk appearing on grocery store shelves. The trend is strongest in the Northeast and Pacific Northwest. These processors require signed affidavits from the producers that they have not used rBGH. A recent article from the Burlington Vermont Free Press reported “before this summer, demand for rbST-free milk amounted to about 15 percent of the total volume of DMS milk sold to fluid processors for drinking milk, Wickham said. By next summer, Wickham anticipates demand could jump to ‘the higher side of 50 percent.” DMS, Dairy Marketing Services, transports and markets milk for 8,000 dairy farms in the Northeast. Some of the processors are only removing rBGH from fluid milk, not from processed milk products such as yogurt and cheese (Tillamook has removed rBGH from its cheese). Canada, 24 European nations, Norway, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan already have governmental bans on rBGH milk. What we are seeing now in the US is a nationwide consumer-driven rejection of questionable bio-tech tampering with food. Could this be the beginning of the end for genetically engineered foods in the US?
According to Mark Kastel of the organic watchdog group Cornucopia Institute, “One of the biggest ‘selling points’ for organic producers in comparing [organic] milk to ‘rBGH-free’ is the fact that in addition to signing an affidavit you are required to be subjected to rigorous oversight by an independent third party certifier accredited by the USDA and in addition to an annual inspection spot audits can be conducted at any time. Also, there are significant penalties built into the federal law if anyone is found cheating. None of these things are true for the self-administered rBGH-free claims.”
Is organic milk more nutritious than non-organic milk?
In a move uncharacteristic for a nutritionist, Collins seems to have ignored science regarding the issue of whether organic milk is nutritionally superior to non-organic milk. She states flatly “research does not support a health advantage of organic over conventional milk for any segment of the population”. Apparently she feels the need to take this position despite mounting evidence that the answer is simply: Yes, organic milk is more nutritious and healthy. Her reason for doing so is simple. The evidence doesn’t support her predetermined conclusion that consumers might “spend less on milk” (a swipe at organic milk’s higher price-tag in the grocery store) by buying non-organic milk instead if the benefits of organic milk turn out to be myths. She focuses on the question of whether one single nutritional component, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) is or isn’t higher in milk from “grass-fed” cows and then concludes “using organic feed may support sustainable farming practices, yet research has not found it affects the nutritional value of the cows’ milk.” On the contrary, organic feed coupled with organic management practices certainly do have a very positive affect on organic milk’s nutritional value. The Soil Association, Great Britain’s venerated organic farming association, has reviewed five significant studies of nutritional comparisons between organic and non-organic milk. Three of the studies were published in peer review journals. They find:
“[The studies] show that organic milk generally contains higher levels of beneficial nutrients and vitamins than milk from non-organic cows. The studies have found that organic milk contains higher levels of beneficial compounds in the milk fats, particularly short-chain omega-3 essential fatty acids, as well as vitamin E and the antioxidant beta-carotene (which the body converts to vitamin A). Higher levels of the antioxidants lutein and zeaxanthine have also been found in milk from cows that eat a grass-based diet typical of organic farming.”
Another study, carried out at the University of Aberdeen in 2004, found organic milk contained an average 71 per cent more omega-3 fatty acids than non-organic. In fact, just recently it was reported that scientists have called on Britain's food safety authorities to recognize the superior health qualities of organic milk, after a new study showed it contained higher levels of omega-3 than conventional milk. The three-year study completed in 2005, sponsored by the Organic Milk Suppliers' Co-operative (OMSCo), found organic milk contained 68 per cent more omega-3 fatty acids on average than conventional milk.
Is non-organic milk “antibiotic free”?
I would like to pick up on statements Collins made regarding antibiotic residues in milk and her attempt to create the impression that non-organic milk should not be viewed as a potential source of unwanted antibiotic residues resulting from the therapeutic or prophylactic use of antibiotics on non-organic dairy farms. The production of organic milk without the use of antibiotics is a major reason consumers choose organic.
Collins unequivocally states “in conventional [non-organic] herds, milk from cows that receive antibiotics is not used until tests show it is antibiotic-free” You may add this sentence to your list of statements made by Collins in her article that are “simply incorrect.” Actually, most drugs approved for use with dairy animals have specific “withdrawal times” (the time period between the discontinuance of the administering of a drug and when the milk from the cow may be used to produce food). Withdrawal times vary from drug to drug and by dosage and method of administration and are arrived at by drug manufacturing companies after pre-market testing determines how quickly after administration the presence of each drug in milk falls to allowed tolerances. Farmers and veterinarians rely on these time periods rather than actually testing each treated cow’s milk to determine when a treated cow’s milk can return to the production stream. Examples of some dairy withdrawal times, that are uncomfortably short, for antibiotics follow: Sulfadimethoxine injection: 60 hours; Penicillin G Procaine Intramammary Infusion: 60 hours; Penicillin G Procaine Injectable Suspension: 48 hours; Oxytetracycline Injection: 96 hours (all these withdrawal times commence after the animal has been given the antibiotic for a period of days or weeks after administration ceases). In an organic herd, by comparison, milk from animals that require treatment with antibiotics may not re-enter the organic production stream for twelve months. This is because the rules governing organic milk production currently require that a dairy cow be under continuous organic management (which prohibits the use of antibiotics categorically) for no less than 12 months prior to producing milk that will be sold and represented as organic. Treating a dairy cow with antibiotics automatically makes her a non-organic dairy cow for a default “withdrawal time” of 12 months (her milk may be sold as “conventional”, non-organic milk after the drug’s labeled withdrawal time has elapsed).
The article also states "Tanks of milk are routinely tested to ensure no antibiotic content." While it's true, in terms of routine testing, that the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO, the federal standard governing the production of pasteurized milk adopted by most states) calls for the testing of every milk pick-up tanker, it is inaccurate to assert such testing “ensure[s] no antibiotic content.” This mandatory testing is only looking for residues of a family of antibiotics known as the "Beta lactam" antibiotics (the penicillin family including penicillin, ampicillin, cephapirin, hetacillin 2, and amoxicillin which are approved for treatment of mastitis in dairy animals). According to the FDA, as of 1996, six more non-Beta lactam antibiotics were approved for treatment of mastitis in dairy animals. These are not included in the routine testing of milk tankers so there’s reason to suspect that residues of these antibiotics may, in fact, be in non-organic milk on grocery store shelves waiting for purchase and consumption. Unapproved antibiotics are also not routinely tested for.
The Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in a report titled "Evaluation and Use of Milk Antimicrobial Drug Screening Tests" states: "There is no ideal screening test currently available for detecting antimicrobial drug residues in milk. None of the beta-lactam tests detect all the beta-lactam drugs." The FDA report says that approximately 40 animal drugs are approved for use in lactating dairy cows in accordance with label directions but also notes that “additional animal drugs may be given to lactating cattle by veterinarians under the Center for Veterinary Medicine's Extra Label Drug Use Policy." This stems from the Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act of 1994 (AMDUCA) and 21 CFR part 530 of the FDA regulations, ‘‘Provision Permitting Extralabel Use of Animal Drugs.’’ The FDA also published a pamphlet for dairy producers titled “The Judicious Use of Antimicrobials for Dairy Producers” in which it states “An example of extralabel drug use is buying Procaine penicillin G at a farm store and using it in cattle at a dose higher than specified on the label. The label dosage is 1 cc (ml) per 100 lb of body weight, but it is commonly used at higher dosages…” In organic milk production, only those drugs that have been examined and approved for use in organic production are allowed and this is only a small fraction of the large arsenal of drugs in use in non-organic milk production.
While a wide range of drug and pesticide residue tests are available to perform on milk supplies, these other tests are only performed if there is suspicion of an existing problem, not routinely. The FDA maintains a nationwide database of antibiotic residue test results, however, reporting to the database is voluntary for producers and processors and compliance with mandatory reporting by State regulatory agencies has been spotty and plagued with faulty data collection and submission. The database figures for the 2003 fiscal year (most recent available) confirm that the vast majority (98% of 4,456,141 tests) of reported antibiotic residue tests were for the Beta lactam family of antibiotics. This stands to reason since this is the only family of antibiotics for which routine testing is required by law. Of the remaining 2% (or 102,054) of drug residue tests reported to the database, 1,899 tanker samples (raw milk intended for pasteurization) tested positive for drug residues resulting in 70,106,000 pounds of milk being discarded. Only 54,932 drug residue tests performed on the finished dairy products you eat and drink (pasteurized fluid milk and milk products) were reported to the database and of that comparatively small number of samples, the database shows only 8 results were positive for drug residues. All 8 positives were for Beta lactam antibiotics. The data indicate that pasteurization (or some other processing step) may have a reducing effect on antibiotic residues in milk, but other factors such as the low number of samples, poor sample collecting and spotty reporting may also contribute to the low number of positive antibiotic residue test results and may contribute to a false sense of security on the part of the general non-organic milk-consuming public regarding antibiotic residues. It is interesting to note that a 2005 study conducted by the University of Wisconsin evaluated the efficacy of on-farm pasteurization of "waste" milk intended to be fed to calves. The study observed "about 65% of the samples of waste milk were positive for antibiotics [so, apparently this is what happens to milk diverted during withdrawal times or to the approx 76 million pounds of milk "disposed of in accordance with the PMO and/or applicable State regulations" due to the detected presence of antibiotic residues]. There was a similar presence of antibiotics in both raw and pasteurized samples, indicating that pasteurization had little effect on the antibiotics in the waste milk" [emphasis mine]. The data from the FDA drug residue database strongly suggest that increases in testing frequency of pasteurized fluid milk and milk products as well as the testing for less commonly tested-for antibiotics would result in higher numbers of positive test results in non-organic pasteurized fluid milk and milk products, further suggesting that such residues may currently be present in the public non-organic milk supply.
Conclusion
So, your guess is as good as mine as to what antibiotics and/or other drugs might have been in the non-organic milk you put on your cereal this morning. The level of testing being done of is certainly not concomitant with the level of medication used on non-organic dairy herds. It must be noted that the routine use of rBGH by many non-organic dairy farms, which vastly increases a cow’s milk production, results in extremely stressed cows who get sick more often, requiring antibiotics and other medications more often. Factory farmed dairy animals that live in crowded conditions with little or no access to pasture or exercise and are fed questionable diets consisting of inexpensive by-products are also prone to be sick more often than well managed organic herds. With this in mind, contrary to the impression the author of the article tries to convey of blithe complacency if not blind denial, I’d say a consumer has far more assurance of the absence of antibiotics and other adulterants in organic milk as opposed to non-organic milk since organic cows must be withheld from production for an entire year from the time any have been treated with antibiotics and do not receive injections of rBGH. Not only that, organic milk is more nutritious. It’s a simple choice and one has to wonder what would motivate a nutritionist to try and erode consumer confidence in organic dairy products. Maybe she just failed to disclose who’s backing her work.
The Collins article was originally published by Calorie Lab Calorie Counter News
(http://calorielab.com/news/categories/milk-controversy/)and generated much informative commentary which is available at the above web address. Look for the small link referring to “comments”.