Hold on to your wallets ladies and gentlemen. A number of large dairy processors are getting ready to pull the old “smoke-and-mirrors” trick that will result in you paying more for your milk while at the same time hurting the environment. “How could this be?” you say. Here’s the scam: retailers will sell “rbST-free” milk to you for a premium of about 40 cents to $2.20 per gallon. As discussed in Terry Etherton’s Blog, the milk is not different in composition from other milk, but you will have a vague feeling that it is somehow better. Never mind that rbST has been determined by the FDA to be a safe and effective way to increase milk production by 10-15%. Never mind that it has been shown to be an effective tool to increase the efficiency of dairying. Never mind that it has been approved for use for over 10 years without any documented problems. NONE!

That’s the smoke, now what about the mirrors? Well, it doesn’t take a rocket (or animal) scientist to figure out that if you take away a safe and effective tool to increase milk production by 10-15%, farmers will need to increase cow numbers to make up for the lost milk production. These cows will use more resources (grain, forage, water) and generate more waste (manure, odor, methane) and take up more space. This will increase the environmental impact of dairying in your communities. In addition, because productivity and efficiency will be reduced on many of our nations’ dairies, they will be less profitable. “What’s wrong with that, I don’t like big corporate farms.” you say. Here’s what’s wrong with that. When dairy processors force our dairies to give up using rbST, those dairies will experience a cash flow problem. What do you do when that happens at your home? You cut corners on spending. On a dairy, things like facility modernization, herd health vaccinations, cow comfort upgrades could be delayed or scrapped. Furthermore, employees’ wages will suffer as dairies scramble to reduce costs to stay in business. The dairies, their employees and the cows all suffer. Without this effective tool to increase efficiency, smaller dairies will be squeezed to either get larger or get out of the business.

Sadly, there is another big cost. One that you will never see, but believe me you will feel it in your pocketbook. That cost will be the technologies and improvements in dairying that will never see the light of day. This is because the pharmaceutical/biotechnology industry will have learned an important lesson. That it does not matter if you do things the right way and provide safe effective technologies to animal agriculture. Some marketing “guru” with his smoke machine will come up with a way to conjure up another niche in the market. He’ll let anti-technology fanatics fan the flames with unsubstantiated claims of health or safety, and convince you to pay more for less. Bottom line: The true environmentalists among us should see this scam for what it really is. Safe, effective technologies like bST that increase the efficiency and profitability of dairying benefit all of us, the cows, and the environment.

Distinguished Professor Nutrition

Department of Nutritional Sciences

The Pennsylvania State University

As a member of the USDA/HHS Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2005, I was a strong proponent of the recommendation to increase milk/dairy product consumption from 2 to 3 servings per day. This recommendation was made on the basis of the contribution that milk and dairy products make to achieving nutrient adequacy. In addition, the Committee recognized the many health benefits of milk/dairy consumption within the context of a healthy diet. The fact that this recommendation was adopted in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005 illustrates the strong support of the scientific community for the evidence base that was the foundation for this recommendation. Based on current milk consumption practices, most Americans must increase milk intake between 60 and 100%.

Health Benefits of Dairy Product Consumption

The many significant health benefits of dairy product consumption have been well documented. Epidemiologic and clinical trials show that consumption of/constituents in dairy products help reduce the risk of chronic diseases including osteoporosis, hypertension, excess body weight and fat, insulin resistance syndrome, and some cancers (Dietary Guidelines, Advisory Committee, 2005). Epidemiologic and clinical trials show that consumption of/constituents in dairy products help reduce the risk of chronic diseases including osteoporosis, hypertension, excess body weight and fat, insulin resistance syndrome, and some cancers (Huth et al., 2006; Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2005).

Dairy Products and Decreased Risk of Osteoporosis

Huth et al., 2006 in a review of the literature reported a positive relationship between calcium intake (as dairy products in many studies) and bone health in 68 of 70 controlled intervention studies. Thus, with increasing dairy consumption there is an associated increase in bone mass.

Dairy Products and Decreased Blood Pressure

With respect to hypertension, randomized clinical trials show that diets high in calcium or dairy products decrease blood pressure. The Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) Study reported that a diet that emphasized fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy products; including whole grains, poultry, fish, and nuts; and was reduced in red meat, sweets, and beverages with added sugars had a remarkable blood pressure-lowering effect (similar to that typically seen with pharmacologic therapy) (Appel et al, 1997). In blacks, blood pressure reductions (systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure) from the DASH diet (6.9/3.7 mmHg) were significantly greater than corresponding reductions in white participants (3.3/2.4 mmHg).

Dairy Products and Body Weight

Population studies consistently demonstrate a beneficial association between calcium intake, particularly from dairy foods, and lower body weight and lower body fat (Huth et al., 2006). Clinical trial evidence from (Zemel et al. (2004) indicated that a high calcium (1,200-1,300 mg/day) weight loss diet and high dairy (3-4 servings of dairy foods/day) weight loss diet resulted in significantly greater weight and body fat loss than a low calcium (400-500 mg/day) weight loss diet).

Dairy Products and Decreased Risk of Insulin Resistance

Insulin Resistance Syndrome (IRS) results in a condition where the actions of insulin are blunted, thereby the biological effects of the hormone. Individuals with IRS are at high risk for developing diabetes and heart disease. In the CARDIA Study, increased dairy consumption was inversely associated strongly with IRS among overweight adults (Pereira et al., 2002). Each additional serving of dairy products was associated with a 21% lower odds ratio of having IRS.

Dairy Products and Decreased Risk of Colon Cancer

An inverse association has been reported between the intake of dairy products and colorectal cancer (reviewed by Alvarez-Leon et al., 2006). Slattery et al., 1997 reported an inverse association between dietary calcium (> 800 mg/day) from milk and other dairy products and risk of colon cancer especially in males.

Impact of the rbST-Scare Campaign on the Health of Americans

Clearly, public health policy advocates consumption of milk and dairy products for optimum health. The new 3-a-Day Recommendation is achievable because there is a plentiful supply of affordable milk and dairy products. It is astonishing that there is an inappropriate and misguided effort ongoing by some anti-biotech activist groups that is designed to scare consumers about the health benefits of milk. This contrived “good milk versus bad milk” media campaign is designed to scare consumers to avoid milk from cows supplemented with rbST. What is unfortunate is that the milk these activists are promoting, rbST-free, costs more! A whole lot more – as much as 40 cents to $2.20 a gallon more with an average of a $1 per gallon nation-wide (ref) when compared with conventional milk from cows supplemented with rbST. As discussed in Terry Etherton’s Blog all milk contains hormones, and there is no difference in the levels of any of these between conventional, rbST-free or organic milk. Thus, all milk is equally safe, wholesome and nutritious. The only difference is price!

My concern is that all of the scary sound bites bombarding consumers coupled with some milk processors and retailers shifting to selling the more expensive rbST-free milk will adversely affect milk consumption. I am a strong advocate of consumer choice. But the fact remains that conventional milk must continue to have a prominent place in the marketplace because it is more affordable (and equally nutritious)!

The National Organization for African Americans in Housing (NOAAH) has voiced concern about this scare campaign. In fact, NOAAH has sent a letter to the FDA encouraging the agency to stop dairy processors from engaging in this deceptive marketing campaign. Kevin Marchman, NOAAH Board Secretary said, “We worry that low-income consumers – fearing “hormones in milk” but unable to afford the more expensive “rbST-free” products – will stop drinking milk all together and opt for less-healthy alternatives.”

I share this concern because of the many health benefits that have been documented for dairy products, and that low-income groups are at higher risk for many chronic diseases than higher income, more affluent groups. With respect to African Americans, there is much higher incidence of hypertension compared with the population. Based on the results of the DASH Study, this population would benefit greatly from the recommendations for milk/dairy product consumption. With obesity and insulin resistance more prevalent in low-income individuals, this population group also would benefit by consuming more milk/dairy products.

It will be incredibly unfortunate if low-income people are presented only with the option of buying higher-price milk. As Mr. Marchman noted, “this deceptive campaign is cheating consumers and raising unwarranted fears.” This will impact milk purchasing decisions and most likely lead to a decreased milk consumption, and an increase in consumption of other less nutritious beverages. However, a bigger concern is that the people who need the milk the most will be hurt the most. They will be forced into a position of not attaining the health benefits of milk/dairy consumption. And, the sad outcome will be that the health disparity gap between the rich and poor in America will widen further. The health consequences of this are terrible! While some in the dairy industry are going to profit if consumption of rbST-free milk increases, it won’t be the poor. In fact, with widespread adoption of rbST-free milk and higher milk costs resulting in a decrease in milk consumption many Americans stand to lose. Guess what? It also is possible that health care costs in the U.S., which are among the highest in the World, will increase further.

What a terrible legacy for the activists who are guiding the ongoing campaign that has no scientific basis, and threatens the health and well being of many Americans!

]]> http://blogs.das.psu.edu/guest/?feed=rss2&p=6 0 http://blogs.das.psu.edu/guest/?p=5 http://blogs.das.psu.edu/guest/?p=5#comments Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:07:11 +0000 rpruyne http://blogs.das.psu.edu/guest/?p=5 NOAAH: Low-Income Consumers Needlessly Paying More for Identical Milk

WASHINGTON, DC – The National Organization for African Americans in Housing (NOAAH), a non-profit advocate for low-income citizens, has called on the U.S. Food & Drug Administration to stop dairy processors from deceptively marketing “no rBST” milk, which is identical to other milk but costs more.

In a letter to the FDA, NOAAH Board Secretary Kevin Marchman said the milk processors making these claims are presenting low-income consumers with a horrible choice: spend limited food money on higher-priced milk that is identical to less expensive products, or serve their families milk which they believe to be lower in quality and less safe than what others can afford.

“We worry that low-income consumers — fearing ‘hormones in milk’ but unable to afford the more expensive “rBST free” products — will stop drinking milk altogether and opt for less-healthy alternatives,” Marchman wrote.

For more than a decade, dairy farmers have been using rBST to increase the amount of milk that their cows provide. Experts say there is no difference between “rBST-free milk” and milk from cows given rBST.

Some milk processors, however, recently have begun selling – and charging significantly more for – “rBST-free milk,” Marchman said.

“The expressed position of the Food & Drug Administration and many other government and independent organizations is that milk from cows given rBST is no different than milk from cows not given this hormone,” Marchman wrote. “Yet companies advertising ‘no hormone’ milk are charging as much as a dollar more per carton — an outrageous act given that they are clearly attempting to get consumers, including low-income people with limited resources, to pay more for something that is of no more nutritional value – or safer — than milk that costs less.

“Not only does this deceptive practice impose a needless financial burden on low-income consumers, it is generating unnecessary confusion and anxiety,” Marchman added. “It presents a very unwelcome dilemma for our constituency: either pay more for safe milk, or buy what you can afford and risk ‘hormones in your milk.’”

Marchman is urging the FDA to put a halt to the “deceptive” practice, saying that it “cheats consumers and raises unwarranted fears.”

“On behalf of NOAAH and its members, I strongly encourage the agency to exercise its regulatory authority in taking strong action against dairy processors that are putting profits over people, and scaring consumers about a product so essential to the health of low-income America,” he wrote.

The National Organization of African Americans in Housing (NOAAH) is a non-profit organization that provides technical, operational and moral support to its members and offers opportunities for professional skills enhancement, resident training, and economic development.

One of NOAAH’s key efforts is known as the Healthy Homes Initiative (HHI). In December 2001, NOAAH established this initiative to investigate environmental hazards in residential and other urban buildings, focusing on the possible negative health effects on African American, low-income and other minority populations in the United States.

This on-going effort brings together a task force of housing producers, consumers, regulators and financial experts from NOAAH’s membership, along with public and private sector leaders. The task force identifies key issues and develops strategies for mitigating the unhealthy environmental conditions experienced by at-risk families and children living in America’s low-income and public housing.

Contact: Kevin Marchman
Phone: 202-544-1058

Listen to this PodCast

I keep a Tom Fishbourne cartoon posted at my desk. It depicts two grocery shoppers, one male, one female. The mail shopper exclaims “Alright! Organic Twinkies at twice the price!” The woman in the cartoon replies, “It must be twice as healthy.” Despite the humorous intention, this comic illustrates a frightening mindset that is much too prevalent in grocery stores around the country.

Years of sound scientific research, which has led to development of the most advanced food system in history, are being off-set by buzz words, poor media reporting and deceptive marketing. Collectively, this is taking a toll on the food animal industry.

I recently interviewed a group of grocery shoppers as part of a research study conducted at Penn State. Of the shoppers interviewed, only two percent purchased organic dairy products on a regular basis. Forty-two percent of the shoppers indicated that there are indeed health risks associated with drinking conventionally produced milk. Asked if there were health risk associated with drinking organic milk – only nine percent answered “yes.” This simple comparison speaks volumes about what is happening on a much larger scale; the public is misinformed and susceptible to the power of suggestion. More and more, consumers are making purchasing decisions based on what they believe, not on what they know.

Organic sales have exploded. Consumers consistently state that the primary reason they are buying organic foods is to provide their families with healthier and safer food choices. Health is the leading reason for organic purchases. At the same time, reports indicate that sixty-million people in the United States are clinically obese. This doesn’t seem to add up. There is clear gap between intention and actualization when it comes to consumers and nutrition. I’ve made it a habit to closely observe shoppers at grocery stores. It continuously boggles my mind to see shopping carts brimming with junk food, and convenience items, topped with a carton of organic or soy milk. What exactly is the intended end result? Often, consumers try to justify poor habits with what they perceive is a “quick fix.”

The organic versus conventional debate is not the only debate that makes it necessary to defend our industry. “Factory farms” versus “sustainable agriculture” is a debate that heats up the most tempered local governments. Terms like “free-range,” “all-natural,” “locally grown” contribute to skewed images of modern agriculture. In addition, they draw dividing lines within our industry. Indirectly, these marketing tools have created fear and misperceptions in the minds of many consumers. This is accompanied by an ever-growing knowledge gap between consumers and their food source.

On Tuesday, October 17th, 2006, the U.S. population surpassed 300 million people. We have more people to feed in our country that ever before and fewer people who are willing to do it. To add to the challenge, a shift in consumer perception is making it more difficult to meet the demands of the public. The bottom line is that our population will not stop growing. People will not stop eating. Whether the food is organic or conventional, free range or caged, our country currently enjoy the safest and most abundant food supply in the world. As agricultural representatives, we need to encourage decision makers, processors and the public to recognize the sound science that has made our industry so great. If we aim to change one perception into a reality for consumers, let it be the one that emphasizes agricultural production as an essential element of national security. If public pressure limits our production and we can’t supply enough food for our country, which country would one pick to supply it for us?