Regular milk better than Organic?

[snwbrder0721]

This appeared in the Denver post's opinions section. A friend emailed it to me since he know's I'm a rather green, organic prone shopper. I'd like to respond to this article with evidence backed up by references that supports the organic cause or other evidence that refutes the arguements below. Any one care to help me out a bit? Thanks.

Here's the article:

Reasons You Should Buy Regular Goods
By Jackie Avner

This article appeared in the opinion section of the Denver Post on July 27.



I don't like to buy organic food products, and avoid them at all cost. It is a principled decision reached through careful consideration of effects of organic production practices on animal welfare and the environment. I buy regular food, rather than organic, for the benefit of my family.

I care deeply about food being plentiful, affordable and safe. I grew up on a dairy farm, where my chores included caring for the calves and scrubbing the milking facilities. As a teenager, I was active in Future Farmers of America, and after college I took a job in Washington, D.C., on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee staff.

But America no longer has an agrarian economy, and now it is rare for people to have firsthand experience with agricultural production and regulation. This makes the general public highly susceptible to rumors and myths about food, and vulnerable to misleading marketing tactics designed not to improve the safety of the food supply, but to increase retail profits. Companies marketing organic products, and your local grocery chain, want you to think organic food is safer and healthier, because their profit margins are vastly higher on organic foods.

The USDA Organic label does not mean that there is any difference between organic and regular food products. Organic farms simply employ different methods of food production. For example, organic dairy farms are not permitted to administer antibiotics to their sick or injured cows, and do not give them milk-stimulating hormone supplements (also known as rbGH or rBST). The end product is exactly the same - all milk, regular and organic, is completely antibiotic-free, and all milk, regular and organic, has the same trace amounts of rbGH (since rbGH is a protein naturally present in all cows, including organic herds). Try as they may, proponents of organic foods have not been able to produce evidence that the food produced by conventional farms is anything but safe.

Do organic production practices benefit animals? Dr. Chuck Guard, professor of veterinary medicine at Cornell University, told me that it pains him that many technological advancements in animal medicine are prohibited for use on organic farms. He described how organic farms don't use drugs to control parasites, worms, infections and illness in their herds. "Drugs take away pain and suffering," he said. "Proponents of organic food production have thrown away these medical tools, and the result is unnecessary pain and suffering for the animals."

In order for milk and meat to qualify as USDA Organic, the animals must never be given antibiotics when they are sick or injured. On organic farms, animals with treatable illnesses such as infections and pneumonia are left to suffer, or given ineffective homeopathic treatments, in the hope that they will eventually get better on their own. If recovery without medication seems unlikely, a dairy cow with a simple respiratory infection will be slaughtered for its meat, or sold to a traditional farm where she can get the medicine she needs. I don't buy organic milk because this system is cruel to animals, and I know that every load of regular milk is tested for antibiotics to ensure that it is antibiotic-free.

Organic milk certainly is not fresher than regular milk. Regular milk is pasteurized and has a shelf life of about 20 days. Organic milk is ultrapasteurized, a process that is more forgiving of poor quality milk, and that increases the shelf life of milk to about 90 days. Some of the Horizon organic milk boxes I've seen at Costco have expiration dates in 2008! There is a powerful incentive for retailers to put the ultrapasteurized organic milk on the shelf just before the expiration date, so consumers will think the organic milk is as fresh as the regular milk. After all, consumers are paying twice as much for the organic product.

Do organic production practices benefit the environment? In many cases, they do the opposite. Recently, Starbucks proudly informed their customers that they would no longer be buying milk from farms that use rbGH, the supplemental hormone administered to cows to increase milk production (even though the extra hormones stay in the cow, and the resulting milk is the same). The problem with this policy is that Starbucks will now be buying milk from farms that are far less efficient at making milk. Without the use of the latest technology for making milk, many more cows must be milked to produce the same number of café lattes for Starbucks' customers. More cows being milked means more cows to feed, and therefore more land must be cultivated with fossil-fuel-burning tractors. More cows means many more tons of manure produced, and more methane, a greenhouse gas, released into the atmosphere.

I see Starbucks' policy as environmentally irresponsible. When a farmer gives a cow a shot of rbGH, the only environmental cost is the disposal of the small plastic container it came in. But the environmental benefits of using this technology are enormous.

Attention all shoppers: Safeway is adopting the same misdirected policy as Starbucks, judging from the prominent labeling of milk at my local Safeway store: "Milk from cows not treated with rBST." When I'm feeling particularly green, I drive past Safeway and shop at another grocery store in protest.

Consumers assume that organic crops are environmentally friendly. However, organic production methods are far less efficient than the modern methods used by conventional farmers, so organic farmers must consume more natural and man-made resources (such as land and fuel) to produce their crops.

Cornell Professor Guard told me about neighboring wheat farms he observed during a visit to Alberta, Canada: one organic and one conventional. The organic farm consumes six times as much diesel fuel per bushel of wheat produced.

Socially conscious consumers have a right to know that "organic" doesn't mean what it did 20 years ago. According to the Oct. 16, 2006, cover story in Business Week, when you eat Stonyfield Farms yogurt, you are often consuming dried organic milk flown all the way from New Zealand and reconstituted here in the U.S. The apple puree used to sweeten the yogurt sometimes comes from Turkey, and the strawberries from China. Importation of organic products raises troubling questions about food safety, labor standards, and the fossil fuels burned in the transportation of these foods.

Does buying organic really benefit your family? Remember, there is no real difference in the food itself. At my local Safeway store, organic milk is 85 percent more expensive, eggs 138 percent higher, yogurt 50 percent, chicken thighs 80 percent, and broccoli 20 percent. If the only organic product you buy for your family is milk, then you are spending an extra $200 on milk each year. If you buy 5-10 other organic products each week, such as fruits, vegetables, eggs, yogurt and meat, then you could easily approach $1,000 in extra food costs per year. Families would receive a more direct health benefit from spending that money on a gym membership, a treadmill, or new bikes.

When I share this information with friends who buy organic, I get one of two responses: they either stop buying it, or they continue to buy organic based on a strong gut feeling that food grown without the assistance of man- made technology has to be healthier.

I don't push it, but I wonder: Why do people apply that logic to agricultural products, but not to every other product we use in our daily lives? There are either no chemicals, or the minutest trace of chemicals in some of our foods. But other everyday products are full of chemical ingredients. Read the label on your artificial sweetener, antiperspirant, sun lotion, toothpaste, household cleaning products, soda, shampoo, and disposable diapers, for example. The medicines we administer to our children when they are sick are man-made substances. Chemicals aren't just used to make these products; they are still in these products in significant amounts. It just doesn't make sense to focus fear of technology on milk and fresh produce.

I say, bypass the expensive organic products in the grocery store. Buy the regular milk, meat and fresh produce. It is the right choice for the family, animal welfare and the environment.

[cheappearls]

I personally think drinking breast milk from an animal is gross, organic or not.

But interesting anyway.

[JiltedCitizen]

It raises an interesting question, is there a difference between organic milk or conventionally produced milk? Do hormones or antibiotics show up in the milk? I know there was a study saying organic tomatoes were better or had more nutrients. Are there similar studies for milk?

[MyDogRex]

First you should point out that this is an article from an Opinion section. The goal of the article is to persuade you to believe what the author wants you to believe. It presents "facts" which are debatable at best and like many arguements we have seen distorts much of the intent of organic farming. The point of organics isn't that you get extra nutrients (although some people do believe that) it's what you don't get that is important.

Here is a link to letter to the editor responses to this "article" http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_6530512

Some points from the various letters I thought were interesting.

"Organic farming does not use persistent, toxic chemicals that can end up in our groundwater or environment."

"Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food as conventional farming on the same acreage, using existing quantities of organic fertilizers and without adding farmland."

"Tests by various governments have shown that organic foods carry a tiny fraction of the pesticide residues of their non-organic alternatives. And organic practices completely ban the use of synthetic growth hormones and antibiotics in animals."

"I found Ms. Avner's arguments to be simplistic and misleading. My primary concern, however, is that The Post failed to point out that Ms. Avner is part owner of biotech company Transgenic Pets, an outfit seeking to genetically engineer and patent non-allergenic cats. Neglecting to reveal this obvious tie to the biotech industry and its likely influence over Ms. Avner's opinions does a disservice to Post readers. As a regular reader for many years, I find this oversight extremely dissapointing."

"I find it extemely irresponsible of The Denver Post to print this sort of article as if it were hard and fast fact."

[Collin McConville]

I think Rex put it best. This article is misleading and the author is clearly very biased.

While, to say that this forum isn't biased would be naive, I think that we have enough discussion, and yes, even desenters, that we can generally get to the bottom using hard facts.

One aspect of the story that I found very interesting was her constant apeal to the "poor suffering animals". Animals get infections in nature. They die. They are in pain. To say that, just because we don't pump a cow with antibiotics to make it less likely to get an infections is "inhumane" is insane. I personally think pumping the cow with every fluid that we can is inhumane.

I don't want someone walking up to me, sticking a needle in me and putting steroids and hormones and stuff in me, I don't know about anyone else here.

[gizzigoo]

I have to say I see a different face to farming, I live in a beef cattle area and cattle doesn't get sick that often to start with. Most farmers here treat their cattle with respect. They are very valuable animals if you put a monetary value on them.
The milk I buy comes from a dairy with 150 milking cows, they sing to their cattle so I wouldn't say they are cruel.
I do not understand why they are saying the organic milk keeps for 90 days, the milk I buy is pasturised but not homogenised, even if I get the milk straight from the cow it doesn't keep long.
The cream I use to make icecream comes from guernsey cows and the dairy has one who delivers 71 litres of milk a day when the average cow will deliver 15 litres a day!

If you expose your animals to pests they build up an immunity in the herd in the long term. This is where the writer may see organic farming as cruel.

Food production is different when people grow it themselves, they have a vested interest, their very lively hood is dependent upon their practices and they also look to the future as they will be passing their business onto their children.
---------
I just received the latest newsletter from Organic Federation of Australia, this is the peak body for organics in Australia. It appears that we are having the same problems is Australia regarding reports that are not quite correct.
http://www.ofa.org.au/newsletter_menu.html

I have directly cut this small part below from the newsletter which may help. The actual newsletter is not available online as yet but if you would like it PM me and I can email it to you.

------------------------
Organic Diet Improves Quality of Breast Milk
Scientific studies show that consuming organic milk and meat improves the health qualities of nursing mothers’ breast milk.

European scientists have found that mothers who consumed mostly organic meat and milk have around 50 percent higher levels of rumenic acid in their breast milk. This acid protects against cancer and inflammatory diseases such as arthritis, heart disease and asthma.


The study, published this year in the British Journal of Nutrition, offers incontrovertible proof that there are significant health benefits in consuming organic food, especially for nursing mothers and their children.

This study confirms earlier research by the Danish Institute of Agricultural Research and the University of Newcastle showing that cows raised on an organic diet produced milk with 50% more Vitamin E and 75% more beta carotene than conventionally farmed cows. The organic milk has two to three times more zeaxanthine and lutein, which are powerful antioxidants. Higher levels of omega 3 essential fatty acids, that provide protection from heart and other diseases, are also found in organic milk.

A recently published review of scientific research by Dr Charles Benbrook at the Organic Center reveals that on average organic foods contain about one-third higher levels of antioxidants than comparable conventional produce.

These phyto-nutrients have been shown to have major roles in preventing and reversing diseases such as heart disease and arterial diseases. They are important for preventing and reducing inflammatory and auto-immune diseases such as asthma and arthritis. Most significantly they are shown to have anti-cancer and other protective properties for our health and well being.

Source: "Influence of organic diet on the amount of conjugated linoleic acids in breast milk"
British Journal of Nutrition, 2007.

------------------------------

Linkage Established Between Pesticides and Autism
Scientists from California Department of Health Services have found that pregnant women living near fields sprayed with the insecticides dicofol and endosulfan were six-times more likely to give birth to children with "Autism Spectrum Disorders" (ASD) than women living many kilometres from treated fields.


Endosulfan is widely used in fruits, vegetables and cotton in Australia and around the world. It is persistent in the environment with residues being found in the sprayed crops, in animals that feed on sprayed crops and from drift. Many scientists have called for this chemical to be banned. Source: Environmental Health Perspectives

--------------------
Organic Farming Practices Improve Water Quality in Minnesota
A team of University of Minnesota scientists studied the impact of organic and sustainable agricultural practices over three years on subsurface drainage and water quality in southwestern Minnesota. Their focus was on corn-soybean farms.

They found that organic and sustainable systems reduced the volume of subsurface drainage water discharges by 41 percent – a major benefit for the farmer, especially in dry years when lack of soil moisture cuts back yields. Organic and sustainable systems also reduced the loss of nitrate nitrogen by about 60 percent, allowing farmers to reduce fertilization rates by nearly half without sacrificing yields in most years. The improved soil quality on the organic/sustainable plots, coupled with more diverse land use patterns, were credited by the team with improving the efficiency of nutrient uptake and water infiltration and use, especially in average to wet years.
Source: The Organic Center www.organic-center.org
--------------------
And everyone would have heard about the contamination of the great barrier reef, from pesticidal run off.
Tree hugger has run this story in the last week.



http://www.ofa.org.au/newsletter_menu.html

[incubus_of_habit]

The problem is that the term organic isn't a very useful term for consumers.

If you are looking out for animal welfare, for instance, what matters is that it comes from a local FAMILY farm.

Corporate farming is the problem. Not organic vs. not organic.

That and if one REALLY cares about the environment, they'd skip cows milk altogether. ;o)

The problem with opinion piece is that their conclusion that 'regular stuff' is better for animal welfare and the environment isn't based on any actual facts they provide. It's just your typical spin of 'well, that article is misleading, therefor the opposite is 100% true!'

In fact, all things being equal, organic IS better for animals and the environment.

Bottom line, newspapers don't print well thought out opinion pieces.

"It raises an interesting question, is there a difference between organic milk or conventionally produced milk? Do hormones or antibiotics show up in the milk?"

Cow's milk isn't terribly healthy for humans, period. It's meant for cows. That said, the drugged up cattle don't appear to transfer the drugs to the milk at all. The problem with farms that use things like BGH is that it just plain stresses the cows. They produces more milk in a shorter time and ultimately end up at the rendering plant a lot sooner than any organic animal would.

IMHO, if you like dairy, and like the environment, the major goal should be to support LOCAL FAMILY farms. THAT is the best for the animals and the environment. If they happen to be organic as well, so much the better.

They should also petition their lawmakers to completely trash our current farm bill mentalities.

[bluekathy]

I also wonder about the effect of the hormones in cow milk. It is interesting that girls in puberty in Europe generally don't start to develop until they are 14 or so. While USA starts much earlier... around 11 or 12 years old. Is there a connection?

[lee]

Yay! let's hear it for mastitis and for drinking blood & piss! Wooop Wooop! What's next, an OpEd piece from Robert Shapiro on how terminator seeds are really the only way to save the Earth?

[gogreener]

I'd be looking up the rates of illness in organic vs industrially farmed cows - the reason the regular cows are given so much medicine is because their living conditions make them so sick. I think the Meatrix website has some information on this in their 2nd animation on dairy farming. Maybe you could send the link to your friend?

I've never heard of the ultrapasteurisation before, and the super-long-life milk. Is this common in the US, or just something unusual that the writer wanted to make a big deal about?

As for giving hormone to increase milk production, I'd argue that it's cruel to the cows to force them to carry so much milk. And cows are meant to eat grass, not grain - the writer assumes that more cows means more grain which has to be farmed, therefore tractors, etc. Industrial dairy does rely on grain, but free-range cows don't need to.

The claim about 6 times as much diesel per bushel is only hearsay.

I do agree that just because something is organic, doesn't mean it's the best choice for the environment - sometimes a local or regularly farmed option can be better, depending on the situation, and the FDA guidelines for organic are getting less stringent all the time. But saying that consumers have to be wary of marketing claims doesn't make regular milk better than organic milk.

And there's the point brought up earlier in the replies to the article at the newspaper - the writer's ties to the biotech industry, the fact that organic methods cause less pollution, and so on.

Edited to add: I just watched the dairy farming animation at the Meatrix website, and although it's a bit cheesy, it covers a lot of the issues raised in the article you were emailed. The rBGH hormone the writer is so in love with is banned in Europe. In the US, it was only tested by Monsanto for 90 days, on 30 rats - apparently this is good enough for the FDA. More information here: http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/hormones/

OK, edited again to get the name of the FDA right

[incubus_of_habit]

There isn't a whole lot of evidence that BGH is harmful to humans...or that it even gets into the milk.

The problem with BGH is that it a) stresses the cows (not nice to cows) and b) we HAVE enough milk.

BGH just ends up benefitting the corporate farming industry and doesn't do a whole lot to the family farm in terms of benefits.

[tyrdude/ Hyperdrone]

I like breast milk. me and my girlfriend make our own milk, it sounds weird but it tastes better then cow milk. we feel that taking milk from animals aqgainst there will is cruel, so we bottle our own and use it sparingly.

try it one day, we sell it as a product to whoevers interested.

[JiltedCitizen]

I like breast milk. me and my girlfriend make our own milk, it sounds weird but it tastes better then cow milk. we feel that taking milk from animals aqgainst there will is cruel, so we bottle our own and use it sparingly.

try it one day, we sell it as a product to whoevers interested.

That's pretty weird yes. And somewhat disturbing.

[ashlandlee]

There is a difference between hearsay and the law or facts.

Me: Meat quality assurance inspector,Dairy food quality assurance inspector, NYS Dairy certified inspector and before that an environmental testing laboratory chemist. I even did organic reporting.

Meat & organic foods are regulated by the USDA across the country. FDA tracts produce. The state controls dairy. Which intern reports to the FDA.

Meat inspections happen at the farm, butcher, and packaging plant. This happens daily. Produce and organic is inspected at the farm. 2-3 times a year FDA will stop by the processing plant to inspect.

The Northeast has the tightest control on their meat. For instance testing happens regularly and if contamination is found by an inspector the plant is shut down until solved. the rest of the states don't do so well. most inspectors risk and will loss their job for pointing out contamination.

NYS has the tightest control for Dairy. Most states I would not touch the dairy. Too much puss and microbes. The more the cow is standing in dung the more likely they will get sick. hence all the puss which stays in your milk. Grass is best.

Shelf life...The long shelf life, the opinion person was talking about is most likely aseptic packaging. o food or organic material would degrade if it were not for microbes. aseptic processing literally has NO microbe due to it being heated to extreme temperatures (but not high enough to denature) and then packaged in a "clean" area. I did testing , 6 samples every hour for 3 years.I may have seen 4-5 samples ever that had a coliform and even then it only had one. Normal milk has 700-1200 colonies. So long shelf life is as pure a milk as you'll ever see. when it is not aseptic your milk is being digested by the microbes while on the shelf or until drunk. pasturising only mean there are only a few microbes at any given testing instance. Remember there are tolerances for everything. except aseptic.

After being in China...I wouldn't eat anything from there except at a good hotel. And there are no organic inspection for Chinese food. Just as there is no restraint for non-organic foods from Mexico which is why they use DDT. Don't eat the bananas. so that person who doesn't buy organic probably will not have many healthy grand kids.

Dr. Dr. Jayme Mancini's PhD - DO (yes that many degrees)from Michigan state, research has shown that second and third generation animals show cartilage and bone deformalities in seals that eat fish..fat liver and brain samples showed high levels of pesticides in the deformed animals. She said that all the animals e.g. birds..were deformed in her test field. So, non-organic eaters will eventually weed themselvs out of the genome.

[ArchaeoTerra]

This is all I got:

http://www.vegansociety.com/html/animal ... arming.php