bST

January 24, 2007

The St. Louis Post Dispatch quotes a mother buying milk. Here's what she has to say: "I'm not sure what it is, but I think it's bad."

So, what is so bad? Milk from cows that receive a supplement called bST that increases their milk production. It was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1993. We've already been drinking the milk for 13 years with no ill effects. The milk from a cow that is given the supplement is identical to the milk from a cow that does not receive the supplement. It is indistinguishable. The cow just gives more milk.

Dairy companies, big and small, are advertising "hormone free" milk and charging a buck more per carton. And now, Starbucks is jumping on the bandwagon. It's a scam. Consumers will pay more. Dairy farmers will be paid the same for the milk but the cows won't give as much milk.

Our dairy farmers will lose a valuable tool to increase milk production.

Companies and organizations for their own selfish reasons prey on consumer fears. Consumers are confused. Does "hormone free" milk mean organic? No. it doesn't. Does "hormone free" mean the milk is free of hormones? No, all milk contains hormones.

When you step back and ask, who is it that wants to discredit our perfectly good, wholesome, conventional milk and why? Standing in the spotlight, you can see.

First, we have some dairy companies that just want to make money at the expense ofthe naive consumer and the defenseless dairy farmer. Then, you have the anti-milk and anti-meat PETA crowd. They are against all technology.

How are we going to provide food for a hungry world and fuel to help power our nation if we don't accept technology that improves our efficiency and productivity?

We have the safest, most reasonably priced food supply in the world; we must stand up against those forces that want to "kill the goose that lays the golden egg."

Until next week, I am John Block from Washington