In 1993, the dairy industry of the USA has changed dramatically. That year, the FDA approved the use of a genetically engineered form of BST, sparking a controversy that has persisted over the last thirteen years, which is the law and disputes on public health and security. Many biological minds of consumers rose to hormone-free milk, to learn later that there was no such thing. RBST which is anyway, and how does it affect cows? The purpose of this article is to sort the issues concerning rBST, so that you can make an informed decision on milk you buy.

Somatotropine (BST) is the hormone that stimulates the production of milk and is produced naturally in a cow pituitary. In the 1950's scientists first developed a recombinant form of this hormone in the hope of using it to treat children suffering from dwarfism. The injections have no effect on children, and experience has been regarded as a failure. Researchers have concluded that certain species of specific hormones, which means that they cover only members of their own species. In the 1980 scientists had a new use for synthetic hormone injected cows with him to stimulate milk production. Studies have begun to see if such a theory.

The use of rBST (which is also called rbGH, Posil, or bovine growth hormone) is often misunderstood. Individuals misinformed think that farmers who use the synthetic hormone use 100% of his time with their entire herd. This is simply not true. RBST is used in phase with cows a cycle of breastfeeding. Shortly after a cow gives birth has reached its peak milk production a condition known as cool. Shortly after, its production gradually decreases until it goes dry. On average, cow milk 306 days during the year. RBST is used in the late stage refreshments, to extend the milk yields higher later in the cycle. If a cow is already at peak production, rBST not yield more milk. Neither does the hormone also affect all cows. Although the hormone stimulates production in the cow average of 10-15% annually, some cows May not be at all. Dairy farmers therefore use the hormone for about one third of the flock at a time.

THE CONTROVERSY

In 1993, amidst a storm of controversy, the FDA published its findings in regard to the use of rBST in dairy cows. None of the studies found no significant difference in milk from cows that had been treated with the synthetic hormone, compared to those who were not. Even if the hormone was adopted in higher concentrations in the milk, which was not it, the FDA said that rBST would have no effect on humans. Hence, the FDA does not need to use rBST farmers to label their products.

When some organic farmers voluntarily marked their milk as œhormone â € ST-free or free, the FDA went on to say that all milk contains natural hormones, and that voluntary labeling misled the public into thinking organic milk is healthier . The wording was finally agreed, and organic milk producers now inform their consumers that the products were made using milk from cows not treated with rBST. In the wake of the same law, organic farmers must also that the FDA found no difference in milk produced by cows treated and untreated.

Their conclusions would have packed more power, three votes had not joined the resistance. Richard Burroughs, who played a leading role in the process of reviewing the FDA, was shocked by how few trials, the agency was running. When his questions threatened to slow down the approval process in the late 1980, he was fired. Alexander Apostolou also pressured to leave the agency when he declared publicly that its scientific procedures for evaluating food safety Human veterinary medicines have not been met.

It is worth mentioning that neither nor Burroughs Apostolou outright opposed to drugs, but called for more tests. Their concerns are not appreciated. They were joined by Joseph Settepani, a chemist in charge of quality control approvals of veterinary medicines. After his testimony at a public hearing to a systematic breakdown in the trials took place, Settepani was dismissed from his position as supervisor and sent to work in a small experimental farm. Meanwhile, many letters were sent by the FDA workers express their concerns about inadequate testing, choosing to remain anonymous because they were afraid of reprisals.

Other countries, is experiencing the same reaction, made a different choice. So far, Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand have banned the use of rBST in their milk cows. Although their decision May be spotted more in politics than in the safety of persons, (an increase of milk production should lead to lower prices, thus forcing taxpayers to spend more money on operator subsidies), at least two Canadian studies have yielded results questionable. In the first, it was suggested May it be a very rare sensitivity to food rBST treated cattle. Thereafter, a study in 1998 found an increase in security risks in animals. Cattle treaties were 25% more likely to suffer from mastitis, 18% more likely to be sterile, and 50% more likely to go lame.

Whether or not rBST milk from treated cows is really different, the controversy has resulted in a stable market for organic milk producers. Since 1993, demand for organic milk has risen by 500%, and at the moment, demand exceeds supply. Although the FDA is unlikely to reverse, it seems dairy farmers are facing their market. Last week, on the shelves of dairy case I noticed traditional farmers are now offering their own milk products produced by cows not treated with rBST.

====================================

About the author
Francesca Black works in marketing at www.organic-items.com and Pilates Shop (http://www.pilates-shop.net) leading portals for organic products and natural excercise.