What is bst in milk

The FDA began to address these issues in the s. By , the FDA ruled that bST was safe for humans and cows and that bST increased milk yield and improved feed efficiency and could be sold for commercial use in lactating dairy cows. One basis for the decision was the finding that oral administration of bST to rats, at doses times or more than the dose administered per pound of body weight daily to dairy cows for up to 90 days, had no effect on cancer incidence, deaths, or other clinical findings.

These results supported earlier published research, which showed that bST is biologically inert when consumed orally because it is a peptide and degrades to amino acids in the gastrointestinal tract like any other peptide or protein. Indeed, for any biological activity, bST must be administered by subcutaneous or intramuscular injection or infused directly into the bloodstream. Furthermore, bST will not evoke a biological response when injected into humans because bST does not bind to the somatotropin receptors in human cells.

Such binding is necessary for any biological effect to ensue. States require milk to be tested for drug residues. Milk found to have unsafe levels of residues must be discarded. Although an FDA advisory committee concluded in March that adequate safeguards exist to prevent unsafe levels of antibiotic residues from entering the milk supply, additional steps were taken to ensure that any unsafe residues in the milk of bST-treated cows are detected before the milk or its products are marketed.

According to a news release issued by the U. The most intense controversy surrounding approval of bST for use in dairy cows has occurred in major dairy producing states in the Great Lakes and New England areas.

Representatives of the dairy industry are concerned about the ultimate economic effect on producers. Consumer and environmental advocacy groups have expressed opposition based on concerns about milk quality and the use of biotechnology in general.

Dairy producers Some producers are afraid that they will not be able to keep up with new technologies and they will suffer economically as a result. Others feel that a product such as bST will work to the disadvantage of producers in the Great Lakes States and the Northeast. Natural resistance to new technology adoption and a fear of genetic engineering techniques cause some producers to resist the approval and use of bST. Special interest groups Activist groups with a variety of agendas and motives have addressed the bST issue.

Some have stated that milk from treated cows may not be safe after all, and more testing is needed. Others see this as a scare tactic to delay or block the use of bST and undermine consumer confidence in milk from bST-treated cows. Some animal rights groups see the use of animals for food, under any circumstances, as inhumane or a violation of those animals' "rights". S Others have stated that cows have a right not to be injected with bST.

Others Other opposing arguments state that the FDA does no independent testing of its own, but only monitors the studies of the companies seeking approval. The persistent oversupply of milk and dairy products has also been cited as a reason to block the use of bST.

Some dairy farmers oppose the use of bST but feel they would have no choice but to use the product in their own herd in order to stay competitive if bST came into general use McDermott.

Table 2 summarizes arguments for and against the use of bST in the categories of food safety and its effect on the number and size of farms. What Lies Ahead? Use of bST will have a significant effect on the research and development investment in agricultural biotechnology by commercial firms.

Universities will be expected to provide unbiased scientific information. Patience, tolerance, and understanding will be required by educators, extension workers, and other professionals in agriculture who work with groups that either support or oppose implementation of technology such as bST.

Safety is not an issue; bST is naturally present in milk and would be broken down in the digestive process. Can we really be sure that milk from bST-treated cows is safe? Do we really know we need to know? Consumers will be reassured when they get the complete story of safety of milk from treated cows. We won't see lower milk prices. Retail food prices increase even when farm prices decline.

Dairy product consumption at best will be unaffected, and more likely will be hurt by approval of bST. Some consumers will prefer RorganicS non-bST-treated milk. Marketers could sell such an RorganicS product. Consumers wonUt believe the chemical companies and FDA when they refute negative campaigns. The dairy industry canUt afford to stake everything on what some people say is scientific truth. Increased feed and forage for bST-treated cows is more difficult to produce on smaller farms.

Small farms will be pushed out faster. Farm buildings and other assets will be worth less as more producers are forced out of dairy production. Farm size has been increasing and number of dairy farms has been decreasing for years.

This will occur with or without approval of bST. In the Northeast and Midwest, fewer farms will result in decreased service and supplier support for remaining farms. There is an adverse effect on the environment and quality of life when large farms are favored. University of Illinois 69 Mumford Hall W. Gregroy Drive Urbana, IL University of Minnesota 3 Coffey Hall St. Paul, MN Purdue University S. Second St. Lafayette, IN University of Missouri S.

Fifth St. Columbia, MO Ames, IA University of Nebraska Dept. Communications Lincoln, NE North Dakota State University Ag. Michigan State University 10B Ag. East Lansing, MI University of Wisconsin Ag. Early research in the s and s in Russia and England found that milk production in cows could be increased by injecting cattle pituitary extracts, specifically bST.

English scientists attempted to increase milk production in cows during World War II with pituitary-derived bST to alleviate food shortages.

This process is also advantageous for producing a more consistent and purified source of bST. The drug also must be effective, meaning that it works as intended. These were:. At least 8 other national and international review committees have evaluated the evidence concerning potential health effects of rBGH on humans and dairy cows.

These reviews and the most recent year they convened are listed below. Several of these reports document adverse effects on cows, including higher rates of mastitis, foot problems, and injection site reactions. Although the use of rBGH is still approved in the United States, demand for the product has decreased in recent years.

Many large grocery store chains no longer carry milk from cows treated with rBGH. The available evidence shows that the use of rBGH can cause adverse health effects in cows. The evidence for potential harm to humans is inconclusive.