Milk Causes Osteoporosis

[quote]MCGOO wrote:
Of all the mammals, only humans–and then only a minority, principally
Caucasians–continue to drink milk beyond babyhood.
[/quote]

I’ve personally seen cats, dogs, raccoons, mice, swine, cattle, and sheep willingly consume large amounts of milk and other dairy products if provided, with little to no consquence, swine tend to get larger and leaner on sweet dairy whey. Also, equally frivolous, but equally malleable; Of all the mammals, only humans have the capacity to produce their own milk in limitless supply with respect to the population. Human women will lactate indefinitely provided the milk is consumed and nutritional needs are met. Every other mammal ceases lactating at some set time after birthing.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Pootie Tang wrote:
This explains why countries with the highest rates of milk consumption, such as Ireland, Austria, and Holland, also have the highest incidence of osteoporosis.

These places are cloudy and rainy most of the year. Vitamin D needs sunlight in order to be effective.

Actually, Vitamin D is effective with or without sunlight. What you’re referring to is the body’s ability to produce its own Vit D.
[/quote]

You’re right, but he’s right about how lack of sunlight could decrease Vitamin D in the body. Too much vitamin D can also be harmful. It is estimated that on average, 15 minutes of daily sunlight is enough for overall health as far as Vitamin D is concerned.

I believe vitamin D is helpful in the absorption and proper utilization of calcium actually. You want them both.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Pootie Tang wrote:
This explains why countries with the highest rates of milk consumption, such as Ireland, Austria, and Holland, also have the highest incidence of osteoporosis.

These places are cloudy and rainy most of the year. Vitamin D needs sunlight in order to be effective.

Actually, Vitamin D is effective with or without sunlight. What you’re referring to is the body’s ability to produce its own Vit D.

You’re right, but he’s right about how lack of sunlight could decrease Vitamin D in the body. Too much vitamin D can also be harmful. It is estimated that on average, 15 minutes of daily sunlight is enough for overall health as far as Vitamin D is concerned.[/quote]

Not necessarily true. There are two types of vitamin D, the type that is synthesized from direct sunlight must be then transformed by the liver into the active (semi-steroidal) form to be used by the body. The vitamin D in milk is a synthetic form off the kind we get from sun exposure. Since it’s synthetic and must be processed by the liver, it can be hepatoxic. Further, it takes an estimated two hours of sunlight to get even 25% of the active form of vitamin D we need to be healthy. 15 minutes barely registers any vitamin D synthesis, depending on what latitude one lives. This is why dark skinned “indiviudals” in America have quite poor active vitamin D levels, despite their dairy consumption and usually more than 15 minutes of daily sun exposure.

It’s better to rely on diet for your vitamin D needs, unless one is going to get several hours of daily sun. Which by the way, is not harmful, as long as you build up to this point slowly.

TS

lucasa,

You definitely have some decent chunks of food for thought. I’ll give you that. However, you are getting WAY off topic when you start comparing milk to tobacco consumption and other foods. There was no point in posting a rank of foods purchased. The topic is not what substances are the most consumed which may contribute to a condition or disease. It’s about pasteurized and homongenized milk products from grain-fed, drug-ladened animals.

Also, I don’t know where you got your figures from, but the average Amercian eats +/-600 doughnuts a year, I don’t see that accurately depicted on your list(s).

What happened to the rational discussion we are supposed to be having?!?! You and I both know that milk is consumed in MASSIVE quantities, especially by younger Americans.

Further, no one is talking about trying to pass legislation to ban processed milk! As stated, I believe it’s a viable alternative to those that do not have the means to eat a proper diet.

It’s none the less interesting to see you pull your hair out as you spout out these “scientific” findings.

TS

[quote]TopSirloin wrote:
vitamin D in milk is a synthetic form off the kind we get from sun exposure. Since it’s synthetic and must be processed by the liver, it can be hepatoxic. TS[/quote]

Prove this.

[quote]TopSirloin wrote:
The path that transforms healthy milk products into allergens and carcinogens begins with modern feeding methods that substitute high-protein, soy-based feeds for fresh green grass and breeding methods to produce cows with abnormally large pituitary glands so that they produce three times more milk than the old fashioned scrub cow.

These cows need antibiotics to keep them well.[/quote]
It’s this ignorance and double entendre that makes me doubt the rest of his message, the cows don’t need the antibiotics to keep them well, they need the antibiotics for 2 reasons 1) It keeps the cow and everything it interacts with much more sanitary. 2) It PREVENTS illness, that doesn’t mean that they will get sick without antibiotics, they just become more prone just like every other organism on earth.

[quote]
Their milk is then pasteurized so that all valuable enzymes are destroyed.

Literally dozens of other precious enzymes are destroyed in the pasteurization process.

Without them, milk is very difficult to digest.

The human pancreas is not always able to produce these enzymes; over-stress of the pancreas can lead to diabetes and other diseases.
[/quote]Over-stress of the pancreas and dibetes are pretty easy to diagnose. While milk does stress it, so do other things that ARE healthy, like exercise and fruits and vegetables.

More double entendre and pseudo-science, natural Vit D complex is just as toxic to the liver as synthetic Vit D.

[quote]
Non-fat dried milk and sweetened condensed milk are the principle dairy products in third world countries; use of ultra high temperature pasteurized milk is widespread in Europe.[/quote]
And as I said before, milk consumption and disease/mortality rates varies widely among these populations.

[quote]
Other Factors Regarding Milk

Milk and refined sugar make two of the largest contributions to food induced ill health in our country. That may seem like an overly harsh statement, but when one examines the evidence, this is a reasonable conclusion.
[/quote] This is a bait and switch, excessive processing is bad. Milk, wheat, oats, etc. aren’t bad.

[quote]
Ear specialists frequently insert tubes into the ear drums of infants to treat recurrent ear infections. It has replaced the previously popular tonsillectomy to become the number one surgery in the country.[/quote] So, 80 yrs. after pasteurization and homogenization the effects of industrial milk are ear infections?

[quote]Unfortunately, most of these specialists don’t realize that over 50% of these children will improve and have no further ear infections if they just stop drinking their milk.

This is a real tragedy. Not only is the $3,000 spent on the surgery wasted, but there are some recent articles supporting the likelihood that most children who have this procedure will have long term hearing losses.[/quote]

Time to get personal, I am the exact person that is described here. My ENT specialist >15 yrs. ago ran me through a battery of dietary restrictions to alleviate the infections, milk among them. None worked, “tubes” and amoxicillin (god I loved the taste of amoxicillin) didn’t solve the problem in my situation and eventually one eardrum was destroyed by infection. I underwent a reconstructive surgery to fix it, I was told that this surgery (at the time) was extremely rare. To this day I think about the different things that could’ve caused the problem, milk rarely, if ever, crosses my mind. But all of this is a personal rather than scientific validation.

Did it, still do it occasionally out of convenience, never noticed one iota of difference (ear infections and all). Also, this trial regime sounds like one that would test for specific reactions in select individuals not milk=osteoporosis+heart disease=death correlations as is asserted.

People who ask this question truly have been brainwashed, but in the defense of dairy there isn’t a lot of brain to wash. People had healthy bones long before cattle and the lactose intolerant still have healthy bones, figure it out.

see above.

Number one allergenic food in this country? In terms of what? Gallons of milk vs. lbs. of nuts? Milk death vs. nut death? Nut and fish allergies actually kill people, acutely. Milk allergies rarely kill. At best, the numbers are equivalent. I don’t have any statistics, but neither does the author.

Making ALL of these associations is anti-thetic to your assertion. There is NO link between leukemia and arthritis and your statement says there is. Piling more diseases on makes it less likely to be one single cause. Also, these diseases are both acute and chronic, according to the recommendations (eliminate milk and then slowly add it back into the diet) I would only prevent the acute illnesses and still catch leukemia from milk.

How small and how infrequently?

As for the raw milk commercial at the end, it’s more non-sequitir:

If it’s not necessary to consume large daily quantities of milk to achieve good health, why do I need to buy the most expensive kind from the local gourmet shops and health food stores?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
TopSirloin wrote:
vitamin D in milk is a synthetic form off the kind we get from sun exposure. Since it’s synthetic and must be processed by the liver, it can be hepatoxic. TS

Prove this.[/quote]

Even though all vitamin D3, whether synthesized in a plant, fish, human body (UVB light + 7-dehydrocholesterol)or in a chem lab is the exact same molecule and has to be hydroxlated in the liver, I can envision the hepatocytes distinguishing between them, in the same way we distinguish real breasts from fake.

Hepatocyte 1: Eh, wait, I think this is fake. Look how its riding up and down in that blood vessel. And its looking way too big.

Hepatocyte 2: nah man, Im telling you its real, wait til we get to feel it, your gonna be eating your words.

[quote]spamme wrote:
Professor X wrote:
TopSirloin wrote:
vitamin D in milk is a synthetic form off the kind we get from sun exposure. Since it’s synthetic and must be processed by the liver, it can be hepatoxic. TS

Prove this.

Even though all vitamin D3, whether synthesized in a plant, fish, human body (UVB light + 7-dehydrocholesterol)or in a chem lab is the exact same molecule and has to be hydroxlated in the liver, I can envision the hepatocytes distinguishing between them, in the same way we distinguish real breasts from fake.

Hepatocyte 1: Eh, wait, I think this is fake. Look how its riding up and down in that blood vessel. And its looking way too big.

Hepatocyte 2: nah man, Im telling you its real, wait til we get to feel it, your gonna be eating your words.[/quote]

I believe he said prove, not conjecturally refute.

[quote]TopSirloin wrote:
The topic is not what substances are the most consumed which may contribute to a condition or disease. It’s about pasteurized and homongenized milk products from grain-fed, drug-ladened animals.[/quote]

And presumably its disease related properties IN GENERAL, and IN GENERAL or ON AVERAGE milk isn’t bad especially when you put it next to things that IN GENERAL or ON AVERAGE are bad like cigarettes, beer, “other tobacco”, etc. But you’re right the list may be a little out of place.

I put forth rational arguments to the asserted claims, got a little too general when you said IN GENERAL, but other than that, the response thus far was [quote]You definitely have some decent chunks of food for thought. I’ll give you that.[/quote]

Sorry, NOW the sales data is relevant. There are taxes and regulations against tobacco and alcohol and ON AVERAGE they constitute 50% of the average convenience store’s sales. I don’t see anything short of law making a dent in milk for those with means or without. And, as I said on LL’s thread, if you’ve got the means for raw milk at $9/gal. you’ve got the means to drink Grow! in equivalent amounts with a significant savings.

[quote]
It’s none the less interesting to see you pull your hair out as you spout out these “scientific” findings.

TS[/quote]
Not so much pulling my hair out as surprised at some of the assertions and statistics. I was, and still am, suprised that “other tobacco” outsells almost anything in a convenience store.

[quote]Miserere wrote:
This girl is from South Africa, where dietary fickleness is not generally an option. I like her dad :slight_smile:

gadget wrote:
I simply love comments like this. We are not exactly dying of hunger yet, and most people have more than enough choices.

North of the border (Zimbabwe), now thats a different story. But if you listen to Robert Mugabe, thats your fault, being the vile British imperialist you are…

Note: Quite a few of my posts have been taken as attacks etc. This is a joke. I do not agree with Mugabe, and I am sure you are a very decent British imperialist [/quote]

Just a quick hijack to respond to our fellow South African T-Man.

I’m not a very decent British imperialist, more of a Spanish Conquistador, based on blood and upbringing.

I’ve been to South Africa, twice. There is a sector of the population (mostly whites) that are reasonably well off. The rest (mostly blacks and some coloured) are not that well off. While I wouldn’t say they’re starving, they didn’t seem to me to be in a position to exercise culinary fickleness.

PS: Does anybody listen to Mugabe???

[quote]lucasa wrote:
spamme wrote:
Professor X wrote:
TopSirloin wrote:
vitamin D in milk is a synthetic form off the kind we get from sun exposure. Since it’s synthetic and must be processed by the liver, it can be hepatoxic. TS

Prove this.

Even though all vitamin D3, whether synthesized in a plant, fish, human body (UVB light + 7-dehydrocholesterol)or in a chem lab is the exact same molecule and has to be hydroxlated in the liver, I can envision the hepatocytes distinguishing between them, in the same way we distinguish real breasts from fake.

Hepatocyte 1: Eh, wait, I think this is fake. Look how its riding up and down in that blood vessel. And its looking way too big.

Hepatocyte 2: nah man, Im telling you its real, wait til we get to feel it, your gonna be eating your words.

I believe he said prove, not conjecturally refute.[/quote]

Did I lose you with my sarcasm? Or did you just lose me with yours?

My point to Top Sirloin (made sarcastically via responding Prof X, I thought it was funnier that way) was the liver has no way of distinguishing two identical molecules, though one is made in a chem lab and the other by animal or plant.

Apparently, I would be a failure as a comedian, since I would have to explain my joke.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
MCGOO wrote:
Of all the mammals, only humans–and then only a minority, principally
Caucasians–continue to drink milk beyond babyhood.

Bullshit. What about cats?

Only white cats. Black cats can’t handle milk. That is why it is bad luck if a black cat crosses your path. You might step is his dairy induced diarrhea.[/quote]

hehehehe

[quote]Pootie Tang wrote:
This explains why countries with the highest rates of milk consumption, such as Ireland, Austria, and Holland, also have the highest incidence of osteoporosis.

These places are cloudy and rainy most of the year. Vitamin D needs sunlight in order to be effective.
[/quote]

Yeah, and all Austrians still life in caves with not sun at all. The weather is fine in Austria - and its neither cloudy or rainy most of the year. I don’t think that we have the highest rates of milk consumption. Why should we? Please don’t believe everything you read.
Milk is bad - that’s why “Hooters” doesn’t serve Milk* (*only in your coffee). Well tha’ts a comercial hor Hooters…I am a little bit crazy because last weak a “Hooters” opened (in Vienna - which is in Austria).

[quote]spamme wrote:
lucasa wrote:
spamme wrote:
Professor X wrote:
TopSirloin wrote:
vitamin D in milk is a synthetic form off the kind we get from sun exposure. Since it’s synthetic and must be processed by the liver, it can be hepatoxic. TS

Prove this.

Even though all vitamin D3, whether synthesized in a plant, fish, human body (UVB light + 7-dehydrocholesterol)or in a chem lab is the exact same molecule and has to be hydroxlated in the liver, I can envision the hepatocytes distinguishing between them, in the same way we distinguish real breasts from fake.

Hepatocyte 1: Eh, wait, I think this is fake. Look how its riding up and down in that blood vessel. And its looking way too big.

Hepatocyte 2: nah man, Im telling you its real, wait til we get to feel it, your gonna be eating your words.

I believe he said prove, not conjecturally refute.

Did I lose you with my sarcasm? Or did you just lose me with yours?

My point to Top Sirloin (made sarcastically via responding Prof X, I thought it was funnier that way) was the liver has no way of distinguishing two identical molecules, though one is made in a chem lab and the other by animal or plant.

Apparently, I would be a failure as a comedian, since I would have to explain my joke.[/quote]

Not so much, sarcasm doesn’t always translate well into into black and gold text.

[quote]

Just a quick hijack to respond to our fellow South African T-Man.

I’m not a very decent British imperialist, more of a Spanish Conquistador, based on blood and upbringing.

I’ve been to South Africa, twice. There is a sector of the population (mostly whites) that are reasonably well off. The rest (mostly blacks and some coloured) are not that well off. While I wouldn’t say they’re starving, they didn’t seem to me to be in a position to exercise culinary fickleness.

PS: Does anybody listen to Mugabe???[/quote]

I think we need to take this to another thread…

My apologies for calling you british. I saw “england” as your location and what with deduction and all…

True, we have what is called “two economies”, but I do believe both groups have the choice to be healthy. Ironically I think the poorer black population has a healthier diet.

That brings me back to this thread. Meat and dairy is relatively cheap, and is therefore a staple of many diets over here. Yet, even when consuming massive amounts of dairy (up to 3l milk/buttermilk/sourmilk a day) osteoporosis is virtualy unknown among blacks.

Also, I can tell you there is a marked difference in bone strength correlating to milk consumption. I am not as well read regarding the science but I have seen (and experienced myself)
some very nasty falls that did not break any bones, but a friend of mine (city slicker) could break his arm just looking at it too hard.

Anyhoo i’m off to listen to some more Mugabe, he is the favoured son of our local media.

[quote]gadget wrote:
I think we need to take this to another thread… [/quote]

How about we take it outside, huh!?

Nah, just kidding :wink:

I was actually born in England, but having lived abroad for 50% of my life (and my parent’s being Spanish and all) I can sometimes choose to a be different nationality. I’m not at all offended by being called British; imperialist, maybe, but not British.

That’s why I don’t have a TV!

Oh, Gadget, and the fact that blacks in South Africa have stronger bones might have to do with them working mostly as manual labourers. Sitting in front of a computer all day does nothing to add deinsity to your bones!

First, let me state that there are two types of vitamin D supplements: vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) which comes from fish oil and plant source D2 (ergocalciferol), which is found in fortified foods and some supplements. D2, found in plants and made active by irradiation, is less biologically active.

Vitamin D3 is found in eggs, organ meats, animal fat, cod liver oil and fish. It is the equivalent to the vitamin D3 formed on our skins from UV-B. You should stay away from the synthetic D2 as it is the one that has been shown to have toxicity at the higher dose ranges. You will only want to use vitamin D3.

There are newer reasons why vitamin D2 has a greater potential for harm. First, vitamin D binding protein has a weaker affinity for the vitamin D2 metabolites than vitamin D3. Second, unique biologically active metabolites are produced in humans from vitamin D2, but there are no analogous metabolites derived from vitamin D3.

There is no doubt that vitamin D2 is a synthetic analogue of vitamin D, with different characteristics. It is inappropriate to regard vitamin D2 as a vitamin. Future research into the toxicity of this vitamin needs to focus on vitamin D3 as being something distinct from vitamin D2, for which almost all our current toxicity data relate to.

TS

I thought this was an interesting read as well:

by Jane Akre & Steve Wilson

The report that Monsanto and Fox TV didn’t want you to see. Published for the first time.

Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, a respected reporting team at WTTV, a Fox Network Station in Tampa, Florida, were fired from their jobs after refusing to broadcast what they knew and documented to be false and distorted information about Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone (BGH) – a genetically engineered product that has been linked to the proliferation of breast, prostate, and colon cancer cells in humans.

On August 28, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre had been fired for threatening to blow the whistle on Fox for pressuring her and Wilson to broadcast a false, distorted and slanted news report and awarded her $425,000 for lost wages and damages. Fox is appealing.

This is the first time that the script that got the reporters in trouble has appeared in print. This important document has been edited for length but not censored. For the full version, go to the website: http://www.foxbghsuit.com

Reporters’ Version - Part I

“Nature’s most nearly perfect food” - that’s how most of us have always thought of milkSwholesome, nutritious and pure just like it says on some of the trucks that deliver it. But down on the farm where most of us never see? Some Florida farmers have been quietly squeezing more cash from their cows by injecting them with an artificial growth hormone so they’ll produce more milk than nature intended.

Thurman Hattan, Florida Dairy Farmer: "Yes I would say, people in Florida are using it. (Reporter Jane Akre) And you yourself? (Hatten) Ahh …

Narration: Hatten is one of many Florida dairymen reluctant to admit that they’re injecting their cows every two weeks …

Hattan continues: " … it’s possible I could be using it."

Narration: The drug some Florida farmers don’t want you to know they’re using is a Monsanto laboratory version of bovine growth hormone known as BGH.

Here’s how it works: when the cow gets injected with extra BGH, it stimulates the production of another hormone called IGF-1. That’s really the stuff that speeds up the cow’s metabolism, causing her to produce up to 30 percent more milk.

But some scientists like Dr. Samuel Epstein are warning what might be good for the farmers’ bottom line might be big trouble down the line for people drinking the milk from treated cows.

Samuel Epstein, Scientist, University of Illinois: " … there are highly suggestive if not persuasive lines of evidence showing that consumption of this milk poses risks of breast and colon cancer."

Narration: Dr. Epstein is a scientist at the University of Illinois School of Public Health. He’s earned three medical degrees, written eight books, and is frequently called upon to advise Congress about things in our environment which may cause cancer. He and others like Dr. William von Meyer point to what they say is a growing body of scientific evidence of a link between IGF-1 and human cancers which might not show up for years to come.

William Von Meyer, Research Scientist: “We’re going to save some lives if we review this now. If we allow BGH to go on, I’m sure we’re taking excessive risks with society.”

Narration: Dr. Von Meyer has spent 30 years studying chemical products and testing their effects on humans. He’s supervised many such tests on thousands of animals at schools such as the University of London and UCLA. He’s headed agricultural, chemical and genetic research at some of America’s most prestigious companies.

Monsanto is the giant chemical company which sells the synthetic hormone under the brand name PosilacSand Monsanto has consistently rejected the concerns of scientists around the world.

Dr. Robert Collier, Chief Monsanto BGH Scientist: “In fact, the FDA has commented several times on this issue after there were concerns raised. They have publicly restated human safety confidence … this is not something knowledgeable people have concerns about.”

Narration: While other companies have dropped by the wayside, Monsanto has invested a mountain of money into Bovine Growth Hormone.

Company sales tapes encourage farmers to use it as a tool to milk more profits out of every cow.

Video Clip of Monsanto sales tape: “Of course you’ll want to inject Posilac into every eligible cow, as each cow not treated is a lost income opportunity.”

Narration: A number of critics, including at least one state agriculture commissioner, have called it “crack for cows” for the way it speeds up the cow’s milk production … but despite its promise of profit, some dairymen say the product doesn’t always lead to happy trails for the cows or for those who tend them.

Charles Knight, Florida Dairy Farmer: “It’s a tool that can be used, but you better be careful, 'cause it can burn you…”

Narration: Near Wachula, Charles Knight won’t use Monsanto’s synthetic BGH anymore. He is one of many farmers who say they’ve watched Posilac burn their cows out sooner, shortening their lives by maybe two years.

Narration: Knight says he had to replace 75 percent of his herd due to hoof problems and serious udder infections. Those are two of more than 20 potential troubles listed right on the product warning label. But apart from potential suffering for the animals, the major concern is how the hormone injected into the cow changes the milk that ends up on our tables.

Robert Collier: " … this is the most studied molecule certainly in the history of domestic animal science."

Narration: While that claim may be open to dispute, Monsanto … did put the product through a decade’s worth of testing before it was approved by the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine as an animal drug. But that’s part of the problem, according to many scientists who say since BGH alters the milk we drink, it should meet the higher safety standards required of human drugs. The critics say tests on BGH milk that could have answered these concerns about long-term risk to humans were just never done.

Dr. William Von Meyer, Research Scientist: “A human drug requires two years of carcinogenic testing and extensive birth-defect testing. BGH was tested for 90 days on 30 rats at any dose before it was approved.”

Robert Collier:“But suffice it to say the cancer experts don’t see the health issue and it’s unfortunate the public is being scared by an issue that shouldn’t be of concern.”

Narration: Monsanto’s dairy research director points to what the FDA has repeatedly said since the day it approved BGH back in 1993: “The public can be confident that milk and meat from BGH-treated cows is safe to consume.” …

Part II

Narration: You won’t find Ol’ Flossie and Bossie on Fred Gore’s dairy farm in Zephyrhills. On Fred’s farm, all the cows have numbers instead of names - and they’re watched by electronic eyes 24 hours a day.

Farmer Gore, Florida Dairy Farmer: “They help tell me if proper procedures are being followed.”

Narration: At a modern dairy farm, cows wear transponders that even tell a computer how much milk she gave today.

Farmer Gore: “She’s giving 121 pounds a day.”

Narration: In the competitive business of dairy farming these days, productivity is paramount. That’s why Fred Gore and others like him were all ears when the giant Monsanto chemical company started promoting its new product called Posilac.

Video Clip from Monsanto sales tape: “Posilac is the single most-tested product in history and it helps increase your profit potential.”

Narration: Monsanto promised that Posilac - a laboratory version of the cow’s natural growth hormone - could get Ol’ 2356 and her friends to produce up to 30 percent more milk. That was good news to Florida farmers who need all the help they can get in a state where high heat, humidity and little local grain make dairy farming a struggle.

The “promise of Posilac” sounded great to dairyman Charles Knight … but he says it didn’t turn out that way.

Charles Knight, Florida Dairy Farmer: “About the same time we began having a lot of foot problems with our cows because they got so crippled they couldn’t walk.”

Narration: Right after he started using the drug on his herd near Wachula three years ago, Knight says his animals were plagued with those problems and serious infections of his cows’ udders. Troubles he attributes to Posilac eventually caused him to replace the majority of his herd. He says when he called dairy experts at the University of Florida and at Monsanto, they both had the same response.

Farmer Knight: “[T]hey said you’re the only person having this problem so it must be what you’re doing here. You must be having management problems.”

Narration: The University of Florida, by the way, did much of the research on BGH and has received millions in gifts and grants from Monsanto. Knight says neither the university nor the company ever mentioned Monsanto research that showed hundreds of other cows on other farms were also suffering hoof problems and mastitis, a painful infection of the cow’s udders.

Farmer Knight: If untreated, the infection can get into the cow’s milk so farmers try to cure it by giving the cow shots of antibiotics … more drugs that can find their way into the milk on your table, which could make your own body more resistant to antibiotics.

Dr. Michael Hanson, Consumers Union Scientist: "In fact, there is over 60 drugs that they believe can be used on farms and they test for a very small percentage of them.

File video of protesters chanting: “Boycott BGH. Boycott BGHS”

Collier: “There are no human or animal safety issues that would prevent approval in Canada once they’ve completed their review, not that I’m aware of.”

Narration: But long-term human safety is exactly the concern expressed by a Canadian House committee on health. Here are the minutes of a 1995 meeting where members voted to ask Canada’s Health Minister to try and keep BGH off the market for at least two more years. Why? " … to allow members of Parliament to further examine the human health implications" of the drug.

It’s still not legal to sell the unlicensed product north of the border, despite the company’s efforts to gain the approval of government regulators.

Narration: In the Fall of 1994, Canadian television quoted a Canadian health official as reporting Monsanto offered $1-2 million if her government committee would recommend BGH approval in Canada without further data or studies of the drug. Another member of her committee who was present when Monsanto made the offer was asked: “Was that a bribe?”

File Video Clip of CBC documentary - CBC Correspondent to committee member: “Is that how it struck you? (Dr. Edwards) Certainly!”

Reporter Jane Akre on camera: “Monsanto said the report alleging bribery was “a blatant untruth,” that Canadian regulators just didn’t understand the offer of the money was for research. Monsanto demanded a retraction. The Canadian Broadcasting Company stands by its story…”

Hansen: "Monsanto has a very checkered history with some of its other products … "

Narration: Dr. Michael Hansen of Consumers Union is another American scientist still very skeptical about BGH. He says Monsanto was wrong years ago when it convinced the government PCB’s were safe. Those were put inside electrical conductors for years … until researchers in Japan and Sweden showed serious hazards to human health and the environment.

And you’ve heard of Agent Orange, 2-4-5-T, the defoliant used in Vietnam? Monsanto convinced the government it, too, was safe. It was later proven to be extremely harmful to humans … and a government investigator found what she said was “a clear pattern of fraudulent content in Monsanto’s research” which led to approval.

In the case of BGH, Monsanto was required to promptly report all complaints from farmers. Florida dairyman Charles Knight says he was complaining loud and clear that Posilac was decimating his herd … but four months later he found the company had not passed one of his complaints to the FDA as required.

Charles Knight, Florida Dairyman: " … so how many more hundreds of complaints out there sat and were not registered with FDA?"

Narration: Monsanto admits a long delay in reporting Knight’s complaints. A company spokesman claims despite a series of on-farm visits and telephone conversations with Knight, it took four months for them to understand he was complaining about BGH. As for those safety claims for previous Monsanto products that turned out to be dangerous, the company offered no comment.

Part III

Narration: Whether you know it or not, by the time it’s bottled, chances are milk from treated cows ends up in the jug you carry home. It’s made the milk on your table one of the first genetically engineered foods ever to be fed to your family … and the population at large.

Jeff LeMaster, Consumer/Dad: “And for her, now that she’s eating people food, we want to give her as much good stuff without the chemical additives as possible.”

Narration: Grocers and the dairy industry know synthetic BGH in milk worries consumers like Jeff and Janet LeMaster. A whopping 74 percent of those questioned in this University of Wisconsin study released just last year expressed concern about unknown harmful human health effects which might show up later.

Robert Collier, Chief Monsanto BGH Scientist: “What they need to know is that the milk hasn’t changed…”

Narration: That’s the assurance of Monsanto … It’s the company position, despite scientific studies which show the milk we’re getting from BGH-treated cows has a higher level of something called IGF-1, a hormone believed to promote cancer.

Narration: Government regulators in Canada, New Zealand and all of Europe have expressed similar concerns and refused to license the drug for sale in all those countries.

File Video, consumer protesters chanting: “Boycott BGH!”

Narration: So three years ago when the drug was approved in America and protesters started dumping milk that contained the synthetic hormone, your grocer and your milkman decided something had to be done to protect sales.

Riley Hogan, Tampa Dairy Co-op: “For good business reasons, Publix [a marketing chain] and I both wanted to avoid the use of the product until there was public acceptance.”

Narration: Maybe you recall these media reports from 1994 when Albertsons reassured Florida consumers “Swe will do our utmost to ensure that (people) don’t get it” in their milk. Publix issued similar assurances …

The truth is, nobody ever did anything but go through the motions of asking farmers to keep BGH out of the milk supply …

And when we visited seven Central Florida dairy operations chosen at random, how many were heeding the grocers’ request? Not a one.

Albertsons acknowledged: “It is widely accepted in the industry that most all dairy farmers now use BGH” but “we do not know which or how many dairies use it.” …

But not everybody’s using it. Ben and Jerry, America’s icons of ice cream, don’t want anything to do with it … and they’re leading the fight to give you a choice at the grocer’s dairy case.

Part IV

Ben Cohen, Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream: "A big part of the issue is that consumers are well aware that what the FDA said was fine and healthy 10 and 20 years ago, the FDA is saying is really bad for you today …

Narration: It’s one of the big reasons Ben and Jerry, makers of some of America’s favorite ice cream, are so opposed to farmers injecting their dairy cows with Bovine Growth Hormone genetically engineered in a Monsanto chemical lab …

Narration: Our investigation has found only one dairy in Florida which produces milk from cows not treated with BGH and what happened when the folks at the Golden Fleece dairy in Central Florida wanted to label their products as synthetic BGH-free?

Well, first they say Commissioner Crawford’s people strongly discouraged it, but what really deterred them was a fear Monsanto - the company which makes the hormone - would come after them in court.

Glen Norton, Golden Fleece Dairy: “From the information I heard and read, I was afraid at some point that if we tried to do extra labeling, that Monsanto could cause damage to my small, fragile business.”

Narration: Norton and others like him may have reason to be scared. Right after Monsanto started marketing its BGH three years ago, a number of dairies that didn’t use it began to label their products so consumers would know.

Robert Collier: “In fact, there are quite a few co-ops that do just that and we have not opposed that at all.”

Narration: But that’s not true. Monsanto did file lawsuits against two small dairies, forcing them to stop labeling. Then the company spread the news with follow-up letters to other dairies that apparently saw the writing on the wall … and they also stopped …

The labels on Ben and Jerry’s ice cream will soon be different, too … The label will also carry wording that says the FDA has said there is no significant difference between milk from treated and untreated cows - a claim some scientists sharply question. That wording, by the way, was written by Michael Taylor, an attorney who worked for Monsanto both before and after his time as an FDA official.

Some dairy people say Ben and Jerry have jumped on the anti-BGH bandwagon as just a way to sell more of their ice cream.

Ben Cohen: “The tremendous amount of chemicals that’s used in conventional agriculture is having a horrible effect on the environment and on the health of our citizens and our customers and you know, (laugh), if you want to say is it our self-interest? Yeah! We want to keep our customers alive. They eat more ice cream when they’re alive!”

Narration: As part of an effort to influence these reports, a lawyer hired by Monsanto wrote a Fox television executive saying the discussion of any possible link between the use of synthetic BGH and cancer is " … the most blatant form of scaremongering."

In a second letter, he said Monsanto critics are in all probability “scientifically incompetent.” He is referring to critics such as Dr. Samuel Epstein at the University of Illinois School of Public Health. Epstein has three medical degrees, he’s the author of eight books, and is frequently called to testify before Congress about the environmental causes of cancer.

Like other BGH critics, Epstein contends it’s just wrong to introduce a product into the marketplace when there are so many important and still-unresolved human health questions.

Samuel Epstein, Research Scientist: “We’re living in the greatest democracy in the world in many ways but in other ways were in a corporate dictatorship in which big government and big industry decide what information the consumer can and should have and it’s the objective of me and the Cancer Prevention Coalition to assure that this information be made available and let the public decide … and let grassroot citizens take over where government and industry has failed.”

This is the first time that the script that got the reporters in trouble has appeared in print. This important document has been edited for length but not censored. For the full version, go to the website: http://www.foxbghsuit.com