Much has been written about the “Food System” and how we should go about feeding the world.  To put “much” into context, I ran a Google search using the phrases “food systems” or food system; got 906,000 returns for the former and 759,000 returns for the latter phrase.

Why the keen interest in the food system?  One reason is that many scientists (including me) believe we need to apply science to make new discoveries in the food system that will help meet the food needs of the growing World population.  Dr. Norman Borlaug, Nobel Laureate, who passed away on September 12, 2009, and who is credited for launching the “Green Revolution” to feed the World was clear about this.  He passionately believed that science should be the most important tool to solve world hunger.

There is no dispute about the need to feed the world.  Many in society understand the scale of the challenge that lies ahead to feed 10 billion people by the year 2050.

The amount of food needed to feed the world over the next 40 years is equivalent to all the food that has been produced since our existence on this planet (see Metabolic Modifiers:  Effects on the Nutrient Requirements of Food-Producing Animals; National Academies Press; 1994)!

Our ability to feed the world assumes that climatic conditions will not be problematic for food production.  This is not a “given”.  In addition, not many individuals champion the idea that more wildlife habitat or tropical rain forest be destroyed to plant crops.  And, there is the assumption that a targeted bioterrorism strike on the food system will not occur with the consequences of up-heaving food production.  The latter assumption is problematic.  For example, The Lugar Survey on Proliferation Threats and Responses (Senator Lugar, 2005) estimates the probability of a major biological terrorist attack in the United States in the next 10 years to be about 33%.

Another challenge to food production and distribution is the ever-present impact of geopolitical strife.

Collectively, these issues add additional challenges to the problem of feeding the world that looms ahead.

Other Challenges

The challenge of feeding the world is one with many elements that extend beyond the application of science.  Science is important but other factors loom large.  There is the question of what countries or international agencies are going to pay for developing the science or providing the food?

Another key question is:  Will the “have” countries (i.e, developed countries) share technologies that enhance food production with developing countries?  The historical record for this is not encouraging.  Moreover, there is the question of whether the technologies be provided for free or a fee?  If the former, who “covers” the cost of research and development, as well as commercial application? The fee-based approach is daunting given that developing countries and their farmers, in many instances, can not afford the technology.

Another issue that is not discussed much in the public media relates to how will the public respond to an event where food availability is limited in grocery stores in the United States?

You might ask how could this happen?  One way would be the intentional (and targeted) release of a plant or animal pathogen (or both) that has the potential to upheave the food system.  The economic cost of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease outbreak in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2001 is a good example of the impact that could occur.

The Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in the UK has published a report (Cost-Benefit Analysis of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Control Strategies) that summarized the economic impact of the outbreak…it cost about $12.3 billion!

Beyond the economic impact of a possible disease outbreak on food production, is the question:  how will the American public respond to an situation where food availability is limited?  Not well.  There very likely will be a storm of public concern that reflects the extent of food shortages.  The degree to which the public is scared will determine to what extent the fabric of civil behavior tears.  Another reminder that in the absence of food security national security can not be attained.

A recent Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Media Release about the detection of A/H1N1 virus in pigs in Canada is presented below.  The release also was distributed by ProMED.

As a point of interest, ProMED is one of the largest publicly available emerging disease and outbreak reporting systems in the World.  Currently, ProMED posts are read by over 50,000 subscribers in over 187 countries.

As readers of my blog have observed, I have not posted a blog for a few months.  About all that could be written about the battle over application of rbST in the dairy industry in the United States, and defending the freedom of dairy farmers to use safe and effective technologies has been discussed.  The stories currently being written by opponents of this biotechnology are simply a rehash of a rehash…nothing new.  This all has been chronicled in Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology.

There are other issues confronting society and agriculture that are enormous challenges and merit debate about how to solve them.  One pressing issue that looms on the horizon pertains to how the global village is going to feed a growing world population.  Projections are that between now and 2050, the world’s population will grow from 6.5 billion to about 10 billion people  (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications – ISAAA).  Another “metric” that hammers home the challenge that lies ahead is that the amount of cultivable crop land for food production (on a per capita basis) is plummeting.  In 1966, there was about 0.45 hectares (ha) per person in the World – in 2050 the projections are that this will be approximately 0.15 ha (ISAAA).

The shrinking land base (on a per capita basis) is very problematic.  Many presume that climatic conditions will be stable and not adversely affect food production.  That is not a given, however.  In addition, geo-political strife is ever present, and affects food production and distribution.  Moreover, it is not easy to predict future conflicts and what impact they might have on the food system.  The other “wild card” that has a huge potential impact to up heave food production is a targeted strike on food production via a bioterrorism attack.

The question society confronts is very simple – how are we are going to feed the growing World population?  I don’t think many would endorse the idea of chopping down more rain forest to expand acreage for food production.  Science and new innovations are needed – new technology-based products will have to be developed and applied.  A key target for application of new science-based solutions will be to improve food production efficiency, i.e., more apples per tree, more milk per unit of feed consumed by a dairy cow, etc.

An “ugly” reality intertwined in this issue is the cost of discovering and developing the science, and distributing the new technologies (and food) to both developed and developing countries.  This will be enormously challenging!  Will developed countries be willing to cover the costs to do this?  Is there the political “will” to do this?

The current world-wide economic crisis is a daunting problem.  A March 5, 2009 editorial in the New York Times (The Crisis at Home and Abroad) observed that the European Union’s wealthy members rejected calls for a bailout from its poorer members.  This is not encouraging illustration that rich countries will provide assistance to poorer or developing countries.

Another emerging challenge is that there is evidence that cereal crop reserves are decreasing.  If there are a couple of “bad” food production cycles in the World, the amount  of food reserves becomes critical.

These issues are going to be the ones that I focus on in my blogs over the next few months.  The issue of feeding the growing World population is complex.  In addition, many consumers in developed countries simply don’t see the “problem” because their grocery store shelves are full.  I wonder what would happen in America if consumers went to the grocery store and only half of the food was there?

According to the Food Biotechnology: A Study of U.S. Consumer Attitudinal Trends, 2008 Report commissioned by IFIC, the majority of Americans would be likely to purchase foods from plants produced through biotechnology for specific benefits, including 78% who responded that they would be more likely to purchase foods produced through biotechnology that required fewer pesticides as well as products that provide more healthful fats like Omega-3. The IFIC survey follows several recent studies published that demonstrate growing support for agricultural biotechnology worldwide.

European Studies
On October 14, The European Union released a report entitled: Do European Consumers Buy GM Foods? The EU funded study found that consumers are buying foods containing biotech ingredients, despite a perceived opposition to biotechnology in the EU. The study traces consumers’ actual shopping behaviors with respect to agricultural biotechnology products in ten EU countries following the EU introduction of a mandatory labeling program for biotechnology foods in 2003.

The results unveil significant discrepancies when comparing people’s everyday choices at supermarkets to the attitudes they expressed towards biotechnology foods in questionnaires. Nearly half of the people who bought agricultural biotechnology-labeled foods said they would not buy such products, while 30 percent of consumers buying them did not know whether they had bought them.

In September, EuropaBio, the European biotech industry association, released data demonstrating that more European Union farmers are choosing to use biotechnology crops to boost their productivity despite a 10-year moratorium on new product approvals.

Asian Study
An Asian Food Information Centre (AFIC) survey published in early October reported that in light of the region’s growing demand for high volumes of quality food, consumers in China, India, Japan, Philippines and South Korea are ready to accept foods produced using agricultural biotechnology. The report, entitled Food Biotechnology: Consumer Perceptions of Food Biotechnology in Asia, found that in the midst of heightened media attention on food concerns, Asian consumers have high confidence in the role agricultural biotechnology can play in increasing future food supplies and are open-minded to the various benefits of food biotechnology. In addition, the study found that Asian consumers are especially inclined to accept plant biotechnology if the technology contributes to a more sustainable way of producing foods. Similar to the European Union consumer study, the AFIC report concluded that the presence of labeling of biotechnology-derived ingredients is not of significant importance to consumers in their choice of foods.

Not long ago, I got an invitation to speak at the annual 2009 Dairy Forum sponsored by the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA).  It was tempting to say “yes”… the meeting is being held at a dandy upscale hotel on the Disney World property in Florida, and in January, 2009!  I, however, had a schedule conflict and couldn’t accept the invitation.

Good thing, however, given the title of the session I was invited to speak at was entitled “Labeling – War of Words”.

As I looked through the invitation and discussion of the session’s objectives, a paragraph “jumped out” at me.

“The labeling of milk and dairy products has become increasingly controversial, confusing and contentious. This panel discussion will focus on the latest legal battles over artificial growth hormone labeling, as well as other recent state and federal attempts to define what information must be included on our product labels.  If labeling is a hot topic in your market, come learn the latest on these issues.”

War of Words?

Confusing!  Contentious!

Come on!

In large part, processor members of IDFA are responsible for this mess!

NOW, they are going to sponsor a meeting to “talk about it”?  Very puzzling, especially when one of the invitees to speak at the session is from a company that is very anti-science.

The stunning aspect to me about this program idea is that the processor members of IDFA were the one’s who created the deceptive and misleading marketing campaigns that attacked rbST!  I originally wrote about this in a blog called “rbST-Certified Free Milk – A Story of Smoke and Mirrors” in 2006.

The theme of that blog in a nutshell was: some dairy processors are perfectly willing to exploit consumer ignorance and suspicion that some milk might be safer (rbST-free) or healthier than other milk. And, charge a whole lot more for the “safer” milk!

I have written extensively about the fact that all milk is the same from the standpoint of nutrient and hormone content (see:  No Difference in Conventional, rbST-Free and Organic Milk).

The science evidence is clear, not confusing, that all milk is the same.  The only confusion is that created by the Luddites and the milk marketers.

Can you imagine?

Me talking about science and the need for technological innovation in animal agriculture in front some of the dairy processors that concocted this misleading marketing campaign that attacks safe science and scientists?

And, likely with a few luddites in the audience to boot!

And, the phrase “artificial growth hormone” in the promotion of the program.

I wrote a blog last spring “Irony and International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA)” and took the organization to task for double speak for issuing two contrasting press releases.

Someone must be teaching an advanced course in irony and deception at IDFA…wonder what the prerequisites are for the course?  It also would be nice to know who was teaching this “stuff”.

Washington, D.C. (September 18, 2008) – The multiple benefits of animal biotechnologies are closer to being realized thanks to efforts today by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The FDA announced today the long-awaited draft guidance describing a regulatory framework for governing genetically engineered (GE) animals. In addition, USDA is seeking comment on their coordinated role in the regulatory process.

Dr. Barbara Glenn, Managing Director for Animal Biotechnology at the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) released the following statement expressing the industry’s support for the FDA’s and USDA’s actions today:

“BIO supports the release today of the first U.S. government draft guidance, which initiates a public and transparent comment process toward development of a final regulatory system.

Through years of scientific research with goats, pigs, sheep, chicken, fish and cattle, these technologies have the proven ability to provide solutions for public health through biomedical, food and environmental applications. These benefits will not be realized without a published rigorous science-based regulatory process that assures safety for consumers, animals and the environment.

“For example, there are now many products under development derived from GE animals that hold the promise of advancing human health. Through genetic engineering, animals can produce pharmaceutical proteins and replacement tissues in their milk, eggs, and blood, which can be used in the treatment of human diseases such as cancer, heart attacks, hemophilia, rheumatoid arthritis, pandemic flu, malaria and small pox. In addition, research is being conducted to produce transplant organs in pigs that may be a source of organs for humans.

“Animals that are genetically engineered can have improved food production capabilities, enabling them to help meet the global demand for more efficient, more nutritious, higher quality and lower-cost sources of food.

“GE animals can also contribute to improving the environment by consuming fewer resources and producing less waste. In addition, genetic engineering offers tremendous benefits to the animals themselves by imparting disease resistance traits and enhancing their overall health and well-being.

“BIO supports FDA’s framework to apply a mandatory science-based regulatory process to the regulation of GE animals and their products, based on the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act’s New Animal Drug (NAD) framework.

“Furthermore BIO supports FDA’s efforts to make this guidance consistent with international guidelines established earlier this year. On July 4, 2008, the Codex Alimentarius Commission approved guidelines for assessment of the safety of foods derived from GE animals. This move represents a policy breakthrough in the area of animal biotechnology in the international arena. Codex standards are recognized as international benchmarks and act as models for governments in the establishment of their own food safety policies.

“Regulation based upon an internationally recognized approval process will lead to more efficient commercialization of GE animals, processes and products that are proven safe for consumers, animals and the environment. The federal government has set the precedent for oversight of biotechnology through the development of its GE plant regulatory framework.The time has come for the benefits of GE animals to be realized in the areas of health care, food production and the environment.

“The potential of GE animals has been detailed in the report, Genetically Engineered Animals and Public Health – Compelling Benefits for Health Care, Nutrition, the Environment and Animal Welfare, released in June of this year. The report was authored by Scott Gottlieb, MD, of the American Enterprise Institute, and Matthew B. Wheeler, PhD, of the Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Dr. Gottlieb and Dr. Wheeler are experts in the field of genetic engineering of animals.

Science
Issue Date:  September 5, 2008 | Volume 321 | Page 1279

BEIJING—Confronted with land degradation, chronic water shortages, and a growing population that already numbers 1.3 billion, China is looking to a transgenic green revolution to secure its food supply. Later this month, the government is expected to roll out a $3.5 billion research and development (R&D) initiative on genetically modified (GM) plants. “The new initiative will spur commercialization of GM varieties,” says Xue Dayuan, chief scientist on biodiversity at the Nanjing Institute of Environmental Science of the Ministry of Environmental Protection.

A central aim is to help China catch up with the West in the race to identify and patent plant genes “of great value,” says Huang Dafang, former director of the Biotechnology Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Beijing. Once intellectual property rights are in place, says Huang, transgenic technology could transform Chinese farming “from high-input and extensive cultivation to high-tech and intensive cultivation.”

In the decade since China first allowed commercial planting of four GM crops, the government has moved cautiously, granting only two further approvals for small-market species: poplar trees and papaya (see table). Currently, just one GM crop—insect-resistant cotton—is now planted widely, says Xue. China has balked at commercializing GM versions of staples such as rice, corn, and soybeans.

That may change, as China’s leadership has thrown its weight fully behind GM. “To solve the food problem, we have to rely on big science and technology measures, rely on biotechnology, rely on GM,” Premier Wen Jiabao told academicians last June at the annual gathering of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and the Chinese Academy of Engineering. China’s State Council, which Wen leads, approved the GM initiative in July.

Details of the new initiative, including which crops will gain initial support, are being hammered out, scientists say. Some funds will go to R&D on transgenic livestock, an area that has lagged behind GM crops. By 2006, the Chinese government had granted permits for 211 field trials of 20 GM crops, including the six approved for commercial production. As in other countries, the varieties that China has commercialized so far are equipped with genes to resist pests, tolerate herbicides, or stay fresh longer—not genes that directly boost yields.

Proponents note that China’s cautious embrace of transgenic technology has yielded a major success story: GM cotton. Introduced into commerce in 1997, 64 varieties of pestresistant cotton are now grown on 3.7 million hectares, or about 70% of the area devoted to commercial cotton, averting the use of 650,000 tons of pesticides, says Huang.

The big prize is GM rice. Three years ago, Huang Jikun, director of CAS’s Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy in Beijing, and colleagues reported that field trials of GM rice in China were going well—boosting yields and reducing pesticide use on plots—and predicted that the varieties were on the threshold of commercialization (Science, 29 April 2005, p. 688). But the Chinese government is reluctant to tinker with the country’s most important crop and has put off commercialization. The new initiative might break the logjam, says Huang Jikun. “I hope the commercialization of GM rice will come within a couple of years,” he says.

Although the central government has not released a budget figure for the new initiative, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Agriculture told Science that it would cost $3.5 billion over 13 years. Half is expected to come from local governments on whose land GM crops will be grown and from agricultural biotechnology companies. “It’s a new way to support a big science project in China,” says Huang Dafang. Another departure from other R&D initiatives, he says, is that each funded program is expected to produce an economic payoff.

One component of the initiative will be to educate the public about GM crops, says Huang Jikun. Although China is unlikely to see the sort of protests that have derailed field trials and commercialization in Europe, there are currents of disquiet in the general population. “For consumers, the safety of GM crops is the biggest worry. Just like some people are afraid of ghosts, some people are afraid of GM crops,” says Zeng Yawen of the Biotechnology and Genetic Resources Institute of the Yunnan Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Kunming. Although Zeng believes that GM food safety will be demonstrated adequately, he worries that the new initiative will push China to “move too fast to commercialize GM varieties.”

But with questions mounting about China’s ability to feed itself, others contend that not pushing ahead with GM varieties could be more detrimental than any theoretical hazard. “Any kind of new technology may have risk,” says Huang Dafang. But legitimate concerns, he says, should not be overshadowed by scare tactics designed to “mislead the public in the name of environmental protection.” With the country’s leaders firmly behind GM crops, it’s unlikely that any protests would get very far.

–RICHARD STONE
With reporting by Chen Xi and Jia Hepeng.

Because of my commitment to defend science, scientists, and technological innovation in agriculture, I encounter folks and groups on the “other side” who use all sorts of interesting — even bizarre, and dysfunctional — tactics to scare consumers about science, food safety, and the need for technological innovation in agriculture.

Their objective?

To get consumers to think something is unsafe about foods produced by biotechnology … that they are unhealthy or even dangerous. And, oh yeah, to promote a sense of urgency to “encourage” consumers to buy other versions of the same product sold with labels such as natural, farm-fresh, no added hormones, or organic, etc. The obvious intent is to infer that these foods are better for you!

The other objective is to get consumers to pay a whole lot more. Great marketing scheme! Especially, when there are no discernible differences in nutrient content or wholesomeness.

As readers of Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology and other science-based information sources know, organic food production practices are NOT the answer to the question: How are we going to feed a growing world population?

I appreciate that farmers who wish to produce food using the organic standards have every right to do this. Likewise, consumers who wish to buy these products should be able to do so. This is the foundation of a democratic marketplace … if you produce something, and someone buys it, you have created the market.

However, the marketing approaches used to promote these products are a problem. I have written extensively in my Blogs about the deceptive and misleading attacks on safety of milk from cows treated with rbST; plants and plant-derived foodstuffs produced using the tools of genetic engineering; and other products produced using the tools of modern biotechnology (drugs, cloned animals, diagnostic tools, etc.).

A standard strategic response by the Luddites is to attack whatever I write about or present. Nothing new; this has been going on for a long time.

The attacks come in different ways. They write all sorts of letters, fill up their Web sites with trash, and spew out blogs. A keystone of their attacks is that facts (based on sound science) are not important. It is a lot easier to make it up than spend time finding facts to support their argument.

These authors often present what they call “science-based evidence,” “replicated research,” and the like to support their claims. The messages are very misleading. Upon closer inspection, it turns out that either the “research” does not exist or has been done in a such a biased and poor manner that nothing meaningful can be concluded from it — at least not to scientists working at reputable universities, nonprofits, and companies.

To make matters worse, many in the scientific community are missing the larger implications of all this: A large percentage of the public cannot, or do not, want to differentiate good science from bad. They just make decisions and move on.

Studies have consistently shown that the more consumers know about technology, the more they support it. A long-standing challenge has been how to deliver scientific education programs to the U.S. population in an exciting and informative manner that results in learning. It is an enormous challenge.

Especially, when it is easier to scare individuals than educate them.

An example of slander

The College of Agricultural Sciences at Penn State recently put on some educational programs to present the facts about different production practices used in animal agriculture. A component of these programs was to compare different production and husbandry practices, including comparing organic versus conventional farming.

A long story made short: I received a letter from some groups expressing their outrage over these programs. Interestingly, they took great exception to the programs we “delivered” — however, we received the letter before the programs were even presented…the groups were responding to the press release!

I will share one excerpt from that letter to illustrate my point:

“…As a dairy scientist, I find Penn State’s treatment of organic dairy management unobjective, unscientific, unprofessional and deleterious to many livestock farmers in Pennsylvania who are making extra efforts to farm well. Replicated research shows that there are nutritional benefits in organic milk that are beneficial to human health…”

These two sentences illustrate how facts are repeatedly skewed by the opponents of biotechnology. In reality, the programs were nothing like the above blather about being “unprofessional and deleterious.”

At the same time, the inference here is that if you don’t farm using organic production practices, you are not farming well. This is absolute nonsense. Amazing! This author is actually a dairy farmer!

Further nonsense is the statement that “replicated” research shows nutritional benefits. There is no credible evidence in support of these assertions. This fallacy is well illustrated by a blog I posted on July 27, 2008 “Scientist Debunks Myth of Organic Nutritional Superiority.”

The fact is there are countless farmers using conventional production practices, and biotechnology, who farm well and produce safe and wholesome food. And this food is compositionally the same as that labeled organic.

Most unfortunate of all is this: The ongoing smoke and mirrors debate and continuous fretting over the U.S. food system distracts all of us from confronting and solving far more serious and pressing issues.

The Washington Times
Published on Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Milk occupies a special place in our lives and language. It has been dubbed “Nature’s most perfect food,” and we speak sentimentally of the “land of milk and honey” and the “milk of human kindness.” Dairy products represent important nutrient sources in much of the world, containing calcium and high-quality protein.

Fourteen years ago, after a lengthy review, the Food and Drug Administration approved a protein called recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST), or bovine growth hormone, that stimulates milk production in dairy cows. (”Recombinant” indicates that the protein is made with gene-splicing techniques.) A cow’s pituitary gland normally produces bST, one of a group of natural protein hormones that control milk production. (The gene-spliced and natural versions are functionally indistinguishable.)

Thus, low levels of bST are found in milk from all cows, both supplemented and unsupplemented. Comprehensive and sophisticated studies by academics and government regulatory agencies around the world have found no differences in the composition of the milk or meat from bST-supplemented cows.

Farmers loved rbST because it offered them greater yields per cow, more efficient use of feed, and higher profits, but things quickly soured. Activists were adamantly opposed to rbST, however, and they have continued to raise a variety of spurious, specious objections ever since. A recently published article by Cornell University Professor Dale Bauman and his colleagues in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluded the protein is a “valuable tool for use in dairy production to improve productive efficiency” (defined as milk output per feed resource input), and at the same time has “less negative effects of the environment than conventional dairying.”

This elegant study should put any remaining concerns to rest, but it won’t. The food kooks and enviro-fanatics won’t let facts get in the way of their prejudices.

When rbST is injected into cows, their digestive systems become more efficient at converting feed to milk. It induces the average cow, which produces about 8 gallons of milk each day, to make nearly a gallon more. More feed, water, barn space and grazing land are devoted to milk production, rather than other aspects of bovine metabolism, so that you get seven cows’ worth of milk from six.

This may not seem like a big deal, but when applied widely the effects are profound. For every million cows treated with rbST each year, 6.6 billion gallons of water (enough to supply 26,000 homes) are conserved. With much of the nation enduring a drought and many cities in the West experiencing water shortages, this is a significant benefit.

The amount of animal feed consumed each year by those million rbST-supplemented cows is reduced by more than 3 billion pounds. This helps to keep the lid on corn prices, even as much of the nation’s corn harvest is diverted to producing ethanol for cars. And the land required to raise the cattle and grow their food is reduced by more than 417 square miles.

At the same time, more than 5.5 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel (enough to power 8,800 homes) are saved, greenhouse gas emissions are lowered by 30,000 metric tons (because fewer cows means less methane produced by bovine intestinal tracts), and manure production is cut by about 3.6 million tons, reducing the runoff into waterways and groundwater.

Comprehensive studies by academics and government regulatory agencies around the world have found no differences in the composition of milk or meat between rbST-supplemented and nonsupplemented cows.

Consumers are apparently happy to drink milk from supplemented cows, despite efforts by biotechnology opponents to bamboozle milk processors and retailers into believing that consumers don’t want it. In various surveys to ascertain the factors that influence consumers’ milk purchasing decisions, the predominant considerations have been: price (80 percent to 99 percent), freshness (60 percent to 97 percent), brand loyalty (30 percent to 60 percent) and a claim of “organic” (1 percent to 4 percent). Only the “organic” claim is even remotely related to rbST supplementation. Unless prompted, the consumers surveyed didn’t mention rbST as a concern.

Some milk suppliers and food stores have increased the price of milk labeled “rbST-free,” even though it is indistinguishable from supplemented milk, and offer only this more expensive option, pre-empting consumers’ ability to choose on the basis of price.

Activists’ purely speculative concerns about rbST – ranging from the destruction of small family farms to the risk of cancer – have proven baseless. Before approval by the FDA, rbST underwent the longest and most comprehensive regulatory review of any veterinary product in history. Three years before the FDA approved the marketing of milk from supplemented cows, its scientists, in an article published in the journal Science, summarized more than 120 studies showing rbST poses no known risk to human health.

Their conclusion was affirmed over the next several years by additional scientific reviews conducted by the National Institutes of Health, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the drug-regulatory agencies of Britain, Canada and the European Union, and by an issues audit done by the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general. These reviews noted that small amounts of bST are found in milk from all cows, supplemented or not. They also noted that, like other proteins, rbST is digested in the human gut. Moreover, even if it is injected into the human bloodstream, it has no biological activity.

Disingenuous activists have unfairly stigmatized a scientifically proven product that has consistently delivered economic and environmental benefits to dairy farmers and consumers; and opportunistic retailers are ripping off their customers. In a more rational world, activists would embrace – and enlightened consumers would demand – milk with a label that boasted, “A Proud Product of rbST-Supplemented Cows.”

Henry I. Miller, a physician and fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, headed the Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Biotechnology from 1989 to 1993. He is the author, most recently, of “The Frankenfood Myth.”

The New York Times published an interesting article “A Conversation with Nina Fedoroff – An Advocate for Science Diplomacy” on August 19, 2008. Dr. Fedoroff, formerly at Penn State, is Science Adviser to the Secretary of State and Administrator of the Agency for International Development.

Dr. Fedoroff discusses the reality that science and technology are the drivers of the most successful economies in the 21st century. She also addresses the importance of technological innovation for feeding a growing world, and that organic farming can’t support the earth’s current population.

The article is an interesting read that clearly presents why we need to continue investing in science to develop new technologies to feed a growing world.

Enjoy the article!