<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Conventional Vs. Organic Milk: No Meaningful Difference in Hormone Levels</title>
	<link>http://downtoearthblog.com/foodproduction/conventional-vrs-organic-milk-no-meaningful-difference-in-hormone-levels/archives/130</link>
	<description>Facts, opinions and reflections on being a techno-geek granolarancher Mom</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 20:55:44 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Laura Lance</title>
		<link>http://downtoearthblog.com/foodproduction/conventional-vrs-organic-milk-no-meaningful-difference-in-hormone-levels/archives/130#comment-31226</link>
		<author>Laura Lance</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Feb 2011 02:33:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://downtoearthblog.com/foodproduction/conventional-vrs-organic-milk-no-meaningful-difference-in-hormone-levels/archives/130#comment-31226</guid>
		<description>Since the stated purpose of this blog is to "help separate fact from fiction about food production," I hope you can accommodate some additional information regarding the above-cited study, for the benefit of those consumers interested in drawing their own conclusions on fact vs. fiction. 

This study was funded by Monsanto. The samples were collected by Monsanto staff, and some of the analysis was conducted by Monsanto, rather than independent labs. It was written primarily by Monsanto employees and others with financial ties to Monsanto, including Terry Etherton, who has been funded by Monsanto. The study did not indicate which specific brands/dairies were tested, which is an important point because -- due to the ability of some unscrupulous corporations to exploit loopholes in organic standards -- not all USDA-certified organic milk is of the same integrity. (More information on the variable integrity of different organic brands of milk can be found at the Cornucopia Institute website). Lastly, at the time of this study, Monsanto still owned Eli Lilly's recombinant bovine growth hormone rBGH, which some might see as a major conflict of interest in this particular study. 

If Monsanto truly believes their products to be safe, then why do put so much money into pressuring/lobbying all the parties in this debate -- from the USDA to our representatives on Capitol Hill -- whatever it takes to prevent "rBGH-fre" labeling on milk, thereby preventing consumers from making their own decisions on whether or not they choose to drink milk with rBGH?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since the stated purpose of this blog is to &#8220;help separate fact from fiction about food production,&#8221; I hope you can accommodate some additional information regarding the above-cited study, for the benefit of those consumers interested in drawing their own conclusions on fact vs. fiction. </p>
<p>This study was funded by Monsanto. The samples were collected by Monsanto staff, and some of the analysis was conducted by Monsanto, rather than independent labs. It was written primarily by Monsanto employees and others with financial ties to Monsanto, including Terry Etherton, who has been funded by Monsanto. The study did not indicate which specific brands/dairies were tested, which is an important point because &#8212; due to the ability of some unscrupulous corporations to exploit loopholes in organic standards &#8212; not all USDA-certified organic milk is of the same integrity. (More information on the variable integrity of different organic brands of milk can be found at the Cornucopia Institute website). Lastly, at the time of this study, Monsanto still owned Eli Lilly&#8217;s recombinant bovine growth hormone rBGH, which some might see as a major conflict of interest in this particular study. </p>
<p>If Monsanto truly believes their products to be safe, then why do put so much money into pressuring/lobbying all the parties in this debate &#8212; from the USDA to our representatives on Capitol Hill &#8212; whatever it takes to prevent &#8220;rBGH-fre&#8221; labeling on milk, thereby preventing consumers from making their own decisions on whether or not they choose to drink milk with rBGH?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sara</title>
		<link>http://downtoearthblog.com/foodproduction/conventional-vrs-organic-milk-no-meaningful-difference-in-hormone-levels/archives/130#comment-5369</link>
		<author>Sara</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:01:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://downtoearthblog.com/foodproduction/conventional-vrs-organic-milk-no-meaningful-difference-in-hormone-levels/archives/130#comment-5369</guid>
		<description>Because organic milk is supposed to come from cows fed organic feed, you would think so.  I think there was a study a few years back, though, that showed DDE residues even in organic milk.  
All milk is monitored for residue levels, and the last report I saw from the USDA did not find any exceeding the FDA's quidelines.  Of course, if you don't believe the FDA's limits are stringent enough...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Because organic milk is supposed to come from cows fed organic feed, you would think so.  I think there was a study a few years back, though, that showed DDE residues even in organic milk.<br />
All milk is monitored for residue levels, and the last report I saw from the USDA did not find any exceeding the FDA&#8217;s quidelines.  Of course, if you don&#8217;t believe the FDA&#8217;s limits are stringent enough&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tonm Brzezinski</title>
		<link>http://downtoearthblog.com/foodproduction/conventional-vrs-organic-milk-no-meaningful-difference-in-hormone-levels/archives/130#comment-5285</link>
		<author>Tonm Brzezinski</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 01:38:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://downtoearthblog.com/foodproduction/conventional-vrs-organic-milk-no-meaningful-difference-in-hormone-levels/archives/130#comment-5285</guid>
		<description>What about the pesticide level content in conventional milk, recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST)-free milk and organic milk - is there a difference? Is one more pesticide free than the other...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What about the pesticide level content in conventional milk, recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST)-free milk and organic milk - is there a difference? Is one more pesticide free than the other&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sara</title>
		<link>http://downtoearthblog.com/foodproduction/conventional-vrs-organic-milk-no-meaningful-difference-in-hormone-levels/archives/130#comment-1527</link>
		<author>Sara</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 04:11:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://downtoearthblog.com/foodproduction/conventional-vrs-organic-milk-no-meaningful-difference-in-hormone-levels/archives/130#comment-1527</guid>
		<description>I'll make my best stab at an answer, since Terry is only a guest post-er.  The study looked at macronutrients (fat, lactose, protein, total solids), hormones and antibiotics but not at the specific nutrients you mentioned.

My opinion is that while the diet may influence those levels to some extent (and I am not sure whether it is a biologically meaningful extent or not), whether the milk is organic or produced with or without rBST in and of itself does not influence those things.  

One of the difficult things to figure out from studies that make it into the news is whether the reported differences are due to whatever is claimed on the label or is just coincident with those claims.  

IMHO, buying organic is more about supporting specific production practices and principles than about nutrition.  I do have a personal bias that because food produced under an organic label often carries a higher price tag, it sometimes is given a bit more QC than generic and istherefor  of higher quality.  For instance, I buy Stoneyfield or Brown Cow yogurt almost exclusively, not because they are organic but because they are an entirely different class of yogurt.  I believe they would be just as good if non-organic milk was used.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ll make my best stab at an answer, since Terry is only a guest post-er.  The study looked at macronutrients (fat, lactose, protein, total solids), hormones and antibiotics but not at the specific nutrients you mentioned.</p>
<p>My opinion is that while the diet may influence those levels to some extent (and I am not sure whether it is a biologically meaningful extent or not), whether the milk is organic or produced with or without rBST in and of itself does not influence those things.  </p>
<p>One of the difficult things to figure out from studies that make it into the news is whether the reported differences are due to whatever is claimed on the label or is just coincident with those claims.  </p>
<p>IMHO, buying organic is more about supporting specific production practices and principles than about nutrition.  I do have a personal bias that because food produced under an organic label often carries a higher price tag, it sometimes is given a bit more QC than generic and istherefor  of higher quality.  For instance, I buy Stoneyfield or Brown Cow yogurt almost exclusively, not because they are organic but because they are an entirely different class of yogurt.  I believe they would be just as good if non-organic milk was used.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: curious</title>
		<link>http://downtoearthblog.com/foodproduction/conventional-vrs-organic-milk-no-meaningful-difference-in-hormone-levels/archives/130#comment-1526</link>
		<author>curious</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:42:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://downtoearthblog.com/foodproduction/conventional-vrs-organic-milk-no-meaningful-difference-in-hormone-levels/archives/130#comment-1526</guid>
		<description>i'm confused. so does this mean that the articles i read about research showing that organic milk has higher levels of vitamin E, omega 3 essential fatty acids and antioxidants are wrong? or did your study not really address that? i am trying to figure out what's best to buy from all kinds of angles. 

thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i&#8217;m confused. so does this mean that the articles i read about research showing that organic milk has higher levels of vitamin E, omega 3 essential fatty acids and antioxidants are wrong? or did your study not really address that? i am trying to figure out what&#8217;s best to buy from all kinds of angles. </p>
<p>thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Monsanto divests of Posilac (rBST)-some science &#124; Down to Earth - Safety in Food Production</title>
		<link>http://downtoearthblog.com/foodproduction/conventional-vrs-organic-milk-no-meaningful-difference-in-hormone-levels/archives/130#comment-1366</link>
		<author>Monsanto divests of Posilac (rBST)-some science &#124; Down to Earth - Safety in Food Production</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:52:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://downtoearthblog.com/foodproduction/conventional-vrs-organic-milk-no-meaningful-difference-in-hormone-levels/archives/130#comment-1366</guid>
		<description>[...] recent JADA paper we discussed here also found no biologically meaningful differences in rBST-free, traditional and [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] recent JADA paper we discussed here also found no biologically meaningful differences in rBST-free, traditional and [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sara</title>
		<link>http://downtoearthblog.com/foodproduction/conventional-vrs-organic-milk-no-meaningful-difference-in-hormone-levels/archives/130#comment-1230</link>
		<author>Sara</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:14:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://downtoearthblog.com/foodproduction/conventional-vrs-organic-milk-no-meaningful-difference-in-hormone-levels/archives/130#comment-1230</guid>
		<description>Wow!  What a great article.  I hope we can find a way to get the entire article accessible to the public.  
I found it interesting that the differences that were statistically, although not biologically, significant were not always in the direction one would expect based on popular press.  Case in point, that estradiol and progesterone (female sex hormones) were highest in organic milk!  
Thanks, Terry for the guest post and the article itself.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow!  What a great article.  I hope we can find a way to get the entire article accessible to the public.<br />
I found it interesting that the differences that were statistically, although not biologically, significant were not always in the direction one would expect based on popular press.  Case in point, that estradiol and progesterone (female sex hormones) were highest in organic milk!<br />
Thanks, Terry for the guest post and the article itself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

