• Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create an account.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
dougery

Safety of Mosanto's rBGH (Bovine Growth Hormone)

157 posts in this topic

pkeibel, people were wrong on DDT (to some extent).

If a short term study shows that BGH doesn't show up in milk, exactly what is a long-term study supposed to show? I don't comprehend what you're asserting.

but then, you admittedly don't know the difference between a chemical and a hormone.

you also seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of "peer review".

aside to Deborah, I'm not being facetious. If you really want to lower mastitis rates, ensure that the cows are as stressed as possible.


Edited by Nathan (log)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pkeibel, people were wrong on DDT (to some extent).

you admittedly don't know the difference between a chemical and a hormone.

you also seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of "peer review".

Although I am not pkeibel, I will answer this. Hormones are indeed chemicals, specialized chemicals. They are proteins, steroids and other chemical entities. I believe I studied a thing or two about them in Organic Chemistryand beyond. To pick on this is truly nitpicking. Nathan, you make a lot of intersting points here. I believe that you are above that.

edited to add: all hormones are chemicals, not all chemicals are hormones.


John Sconzo, M.D. aka "docsconz"

"Remember that a very good sardine is always preferable to a not that good lobster."

- Ferran Adria on eGullet 12/16/2004.

Docsconz - Musings on Food and Life

Slow Food Saratoga Region - Co-Founder

Twitter - @docsconz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe, I shouldn't have said it...

but let's face it, pkeibel only used the word "chemical" instead of "hormone" for misleadingly rhetorical reasons...because it sounds "artificial"....I daresay that he/she doesn't refer to the many "chemicals" in organic grain....the use of such a general term in this context indicates to me a willing to use pejorative parlance to mislead casual readers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of my first post was that the downside of rBGH is on the cows not directly on the consumer. The secondary effects from stressed cows is increased antibiotic and hormone use plus a need for more and cheaper feed. These are the impacts to the consumers and the studies are not testing them.

My second post was in response to Washburn's assertion that no impact in a short term test implies there should be no long term testing. It's a statistical question that I raised

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

considering that BGH injection increases milk production and stress decreases milk production...it seems that BGH is more likely to be correlated with less stress (if it correlates to both stress and milk production, then it must be increasing milk production by an amazing amount in order to make up for increased stress)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is presumptous to assume that

pkeibel only used the word "chemical" instead of "hormone" for misleadingly rhetorical reasons...because it sounds "artificial"....

I used the term chemical because it is more global and includes artificial chemicals and hormones plus natural hormones and natural chemicals.

Please lets return this to a discussion of why we consider rBGH safe or not safe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been some interesting discussion here, and I'd like to see it continue. In the hope of fostering better and more interesting discussion, I would like to offer the following moderator's note and ask you all to read and understand what I am saying before continuing here:

One goal of the eG Forums is to engender a free and lively exchange of thoughts and ideas relating to the subject of food. To this end, Society members are expected to comport themselves with all due civility when engaging in discussion and debate in the eG Forums. In particular, members are cautioned to address the substance of a counterpart's arguments in a debate, and never to make ad hominem arguments or personal attacks.

That said, not all opinions and arguments are equal or equally well-supported in the eyes of science. This is something that should be considered before throwing one's hat into the ring. We should understand that questioning the foundation of a counterpart's arguments is not necessarily a personal attack if there is a reasonable basis for that assertion, and endeavor to meet the challenge rather than taking offense. Likewise, we should take pains to frame our challenges and comments in language that is respectful and not inappropriately confrontational, and to make sure that we are not putting words into our counterpart's mouth. At the same time, we should own up to the logical implications and extensions of the arguments we are making.

Scientific discussions can be a little rough-and-tumble, and strong points are often made that might offend those who are not used to this style of debate. Those who are not used to this style of debate should keep this in mind and try not to take things personally. Those who are should keep this in mind and try to tone it down just a bit.

Now, let's get back to rBGH. At this point I will take just a moment to frame the discussion. When we are talking about rBGH, there are several aspects that may be considered:

  1. The direct impact on human health. "Is drinking milk from cows treated with rBGH bad for me?"
  2. The effect of using rBGH on the health and welfare of the cow. "Is rBGH bad for the cow?"
  3. The other effects of using rBGH on the environment. "Is rBGH contributing to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, etc?"

I've seen many of these separate arguments combined in this thread in ways that confuse the core issues, and I think we would be well-served to keep in mind that they are not connected.


Samuel Lloyd Kinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Washburn it is a fallacy to assume that if a short term study shows no safety risk then a long term study is not warranted. This is what happened with DDT and other chemicals. The reason no long term studies have been done is because it would cripple the R&D budgets of corporations. There is always a trade off between allowing an "unsafe" product on the market early versus "assuring" that a product is safe through long term studies. The decision to use the short term study as the test for longer studies is based on economics not science. One must then gauge that risk for themselves.

As an aside just because an article is in Science do not assume the data has been verified

25 years worth of rBGH data. What do you define as long term?

Deborah,

If rBGH is hard on the cows that is a reason to reject it.

I bet you guys don't have any issues with this Science paper:

[DOI: 10.1126/science.1091447]         

         

Global Assessment of Organic Contaminants in Farmed Salmon

Ronald A. Hites,1* Jeffery A. Foran,2 David O. Carpenter,3 M. Coreen Hamilton,4 Barbara A. Knuth,5 Steven J. Schwager6

    The annual global production of farmed salmon has increased by a factor of 40 during the past two decades. Salmon from farms in northern Europe, North America, and Chile are now available widely year-round at relatively low prices. Salmon farms have been criticized for their ecological effects, but the potential human health risks of farmed salmon consumption have not been examined rigorously. Having analyzed over 2 metric tons of farmed and wild salmon from around the world for organochlorine contaminants, we show that concentrations of these contaminants are significantly higher in farmed salmon than in wild. European-raised salmon have significantly greater contaminant loads than those raised in North and South America, indicating the need for further investigation into the sources of contamination. Risk analysis indicates that consumption of farmed Atlantic salmon may pose health risks that detract from the beneficial effects of fish consumption.

1  School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA.

2  Citizens for a Better Environment, Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA.

Note that this is good science in a peer reviewed journal finding fault with industrial practices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

slkinsey,

I think moral arguments are also relevent, provided they are identified as such. If rBGH is making the world a worse (but not more dangerous) place then that is a valid reason to criticize the practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet you guys don't have any issues with this Science paper:

[DOI: 10.1126/science.1091447]         

         

Global Assessment of Organic Contaminants in Farmed Salmon

Ronald A. Hites,1* Jeffery A. Foran,2 David O. Carpenter,3 M. Coreen Hamilton,4 Barbara A. Knuth,5 Steven J. Schwager6

    The annual global production of farmed salmon has increased by a factor of 40 during the past two decades. Salmon from farms in northern Europe, North America, and Chile are now available widely year-round at relatively low prices. Salmon farms have been criticized for their ecological effects, but the potential human health risks of farmed salmon consumption have not been examined rigorously. Having analyzed over 2 metric tons of farmed and wild salmon from around the world for organochlorine contaminants, we show that concentrations of these contaminants are significantly higher in farmed salmon than in wild. European-raised salmon have significantly greater contaminant loads than those raised in North and South America, indicating the need for further investigation into the sources of contamination. Risk analysis indicates that consumption of farmed Atlantic salmon may pose health risks that detract from the beneficial effects of fish consumption.

1  School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA.

2  Citizens for a Better Environment, Milwaukee, WI 53202, USA.

Note that this is good science in a peer reviewed journal finding fault with industrial practices.

I would very much like to see fish farming be a viable, sustainable alternative. There are a lot of attractive possibilities there. The problem is that there are also a lot of problems and if it is not done well the practice can cause more problems than it solves. Fortunately, there are some aquaculture practices that seem to be working out well, in particular, raising clams, mussels, oysters and such. This topic has been covered extensively elsewhere on this site.


John Sconzo, M.D. aka "docsconz"

"Remember that a very good sardine is always preferable to a not that good lobster."

- Ferran Adria on eGullet 12/16/2004.

Docsconz - Musings on Food and Life

Slow Food Saratoga Region - Co-Founder

Twitter - @docsconz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, let's get back to rBGH.  At this point I will take just a moment to frame the discussion.  When we are talking about rBGH, there are several aspects that may be considered:

  1. The direct impact on human health.  "Is drinking milk from cows treated with rBGH bad for me?"
  2. The effect of using rBGH on the health and welfare of the cow.  "Is rBGH bad for the cow?"
  3. The other effects of using rBGH on the environment. "Is rBGH contributing to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, etc?"

I've seen many of these separate arguments combined in this thread in ways that confuse the core issues, and I think we would be well-served to keep in mind that they are not connected.

They may or may not be connected, though it certainly isn't necessary that they are. I agree that each question should be considered on its own merits and terms, though potential connections are obvious, such as if it causes more problems with bovine infections that require more antibiotics and this results in more widespread antibiotic resistance, etc. :wink:


John Sconzo, M.D. aka "docsconz"

"Remember that a very good sardine is always preferable to a not that good lobster."

- Ferran Adria on eGullet 12/16/2004.

Docsconz - Musings on Food and Life

Slow Food Saratoga Region - Co-Founder

Twitter - @docsconz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think moral arguments are also relevent, provided they are identified as such.  If rBGH is making the world a worse (but not more dangerous) place then that is a valid reason to criticize the practice.

Yes, I agree. Any one of the thee points I mentioned (and I am sure there are others worth considering) can of course be approached from a scientific as well as moral or political standpoint. And let us not forget the culinary standpoint, which is the basis on which I stand against rBGH milk. Not because I believe that the use of rBGH necessarily produces milk that doesn't taste as good, but rather because I believe that the goals of those who use rBGH do not commonly align with the goal of making a milk with superior taste.

I personally feel that there is no convincing evidence that drinking milk from cows treated with rBGH can be associated with any health risks that would not be associated with drinking milk from cows that were not treated with rBGH, all other things being equal. I further feel that making a choice to drink organic milk based solely upon the use or non-use of rBGH is not an informed decision. This is not to say, however, that there aren't plenty of good reasons to drink organic milk -- mostly having to do with the fact that these cows often have a better diet (perhaps even grass) and are likely to be on a smaller, more slocal farm, etc. But, I think there would be no meaningful difference between milk from a small local, grass-fed dairy farm that used rBGH and the identical farm next door that did not.


Samuel Lloyd Kinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"This is not to say, however, that there aren't plenty of good reasons to drink organic milk -- mostly having to do with the fact that these cows often have a better diet (perhaps even grass) and are likely to be on a smaller, more slocal farm, etc. But, I think there would be no meaningful difference between milk from a small local, grass-fed dairy farm that used rBGH and the identical farm next door that did not."

I agree with this. Indeed, blind taste tests of "organic" and "conventional" products from identical conditions (i.e. terroir and freshness) find no difference. However, in many cases, organic products will be more local and fresh (but not always, and sometimes they may be riskier).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My goodness, are we starting to agree in this topic? :laugh:


John Sconzo, M.D. aka "docsconz"

"Remember that a very good sardine is always preferable to a not that good lobster."

- Ferran Adria on eGullet 12/16/2004.

Docsconz - Musings on Food and Life

Slow Food Saratoga Region - Co-Founder

Twitter - @docsconz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...blind taste tests of "organic" and "conventional" products from identical conditions (i.e. terroir and freshness) find no difference.  However, in many cases, organic products will be more local and fresh (but not always, and sometimes they may be riskier).

Right. I would, for example, choose "conventional" milk from a small local dairy farm over "organic" milk from a megafarm in California. That said, it is usually the case that small local farms are "organic" or "natural" or whatever, and unlikely to use antibiotics (never mind something like rBGH). This may be for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the fact that the small dairy business is not a huge money-maker and things like "organic" and "grass fed" and "natural" help justify the higher prices these dairies need to charge to stay in business. Unfortunately, "our milk is worth twice the price because tastes 1000 times better" doesn't cut it with most consumers.


Samuel Lloyd Kinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the problems for the small dairy farmer and small farms in general is that it is difficult for them to afford the "organic" certification. As a result, it still tends to be the larger more industrial farms that get the organic certification. Many of the "organic" milk products sold in supermarkets are from large farms that are often organic in name and by definition, but not in spirit. What I mean by that is though they use "organic" feed, avoid antibiotics and synthetic additives, they remain large industrial operations. This is not necessarily bad, just not the idyllic small family farm.


John Sconzo, M.D. aka "docsconz"

"Remember that a very good sardine is always preferable to a not that good lobster."

- Ferran Adria on eGullet 12/16/2004.

Docsconz - Musings on Food and Life

Slow Food Saratoga Region - Co-Founder

Twitter - @docsconz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc, that just goes to show that organic and small-scale are not synonymous, but adjectives referring to different parameters.

Absolutely, which is why I have not been defending the "organic" industry in this topic.


John Sconzo, M.D. aka "docsconz"

"Remember that a very good sardine is always preferable to a not that good lobster."

- Ferran Adria on eGullet 12/16/2004.

Docsconz - Musings on Food and Life

Slow Food Saratoga Region - Co-Founder

Twitter - @docsconz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a result, I prefer to avoid the product for now and have my family drink the older product that is relatively tried and true.  Everything we eat and drink has some risk. In my job I have to assess risk vs. benefit and balance them as best I can. I do not see that benefit outweighs the risks with this product.

I stand corrected. You endorse non-rBGH milk, but don't favor Organic.

What is the risk again for the rBGH milk? Monsanto's involvement makes it probable that health risks are being concealed by some giant global conspiracy?


Edited by R Washburn (log)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know for sure, but I would be surprised if it is possible to purchase "regular supermarket milk" that hasn't come from cows that have been treated with rBGH.

If one is avoiding rBGH milk (which just so happens to come from industrial megafarms) and also doesn't choose organic simply for the sake of being organic (thus eliminating non-local organic megafarms), that equals a preference for local small farm milk.


Samuel Lloyd Kinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long-Term Field Experiment in Sweden: Effects of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers on Soil Fertility and Crop Quality

Organic Dairy Profile

University of California Sustainable Agriculture

PCC Sound Consumer Farming the future at WSU

Organic Production vs. Conventional Cropping

OK; here is some info from the sustainable agri. point of view based on SCIENCE, there is so much out there

The one thing everyone misses out and does not have to do with science but economics, the question is do we really need-rBGH milk. The last time I looked in Canada

I saw the results for the liquid milk industry, there is an oversupply of milk, and also from what I can gather in the US there does not seem to be a shortage of milk. You do need to be a rocket scientist to know that if there is and will not be a shortage, to what advantage is it to introduce a hormone to increase milk production on a farm. The whole side of the discussion in regards to the side effects on cows and humans becomes a very mute point.

As for the green revolution; what green revolution??

Sustainable agriculture has been around as long as human kind has been around; the Organic industry (is that green) did not invent re-generative farming it was around a long time ago. It was the introduction of chemical farming after world war two (DDT), the practice of intense farming and the introduction of man made fertilizers (corporate). This is where farming changed not the other way around.

Science can and will show us how much more effective sustainable, re-generative, traditional farming is. The study of soil degredation; the over introduction of fossil fuels into the mix and the long term affects. There are tones of term papers out there; look around do a google search or a AJ search. it is out there.

As for organic milk, is there a difference, the research is out there??? and ongoing but for me Organic is just a marketing board not a way of farming, sustainability for me is the practice.


Cook To Live; Live To Cook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You do need to be a rocket scientist to know that if there is and will not be a shortage, to what advantage is it to introduce a hormone to increase milk production on a farm. 

I would guess efficiency. And if that means fewer resources are used to produce an equivalent product that is a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand corrected.  You endorse non-rBGH milk, but don't favor Organic.

What is the risk again for the rBGH milk?  Monsanto's involvement makes it probable that health risks are being concealed by some giant global conspiracy?

I suggest you go back and reread the thread as I am tired of repeating myself.


John Sconzo, M.D. aka "docsconz"

"Remember that a very good sardine is always preferable to a not that good lobster."

- Ferran Adria on eGullet 12/16/2004.

Docsconz - Musings on Food and Life

Slow Food Saratoga Region - Co-Founder

Twitter - @docsconz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also agree that synthetic does not necessarily mean unhealthy. Nevertheless, I remain quite skeptical of the milk from  BGH treated cows as well as any studies that have concluded it "safe".

For example, looking at the world at large, there appears to be some major shifting of some disease profiles going on. Diabetes is probably the most prominent. Now I am not saying that the marked increase in diabetes is due to the use of BGH. That is too far a stretch and too complex a problem to lay at the foot of a single culprit. It is, however, troubling and I cannot say that the hormone is not involved in that or other issues, either.

The problem with declaring it safe is that the epidemiology is very complex and cause and effect associations are very difficult to prove, especially when there is a lot of money behind a particular product. I simply do not trust the current results. As a result, I prefer to avoid the product for now and have my family drink the older product that is relatively tried and true.  Everything we eat and drink has some risk. In my job I have to assess risk vs. benefit and balance them as best I can. I do not see that benefit outweighs the risks with this product.

I am saying that I am still skeptical of BGH. I am also not anti-technology. Many real advances have been made. But then not all advances are real or real significant. I still fail to see what the potential benefit of this technology is to me. I do see the risks.

What I did say is that there are a number of health issues such as diabetes that are mysteriously on the rise. The cause or causes are unknown. My principle point is that it is a very complex issue and because a single study of a commercial product even in a reputable journal such as Science, deems it "safe", doesn't necessarily mean it is so. There are potentially other factors besides direct effects on an organism. I am not saying that the additional use of this hormone is bad. I don't know that. I am just not yet convinced of its value (to me) and that it is not bad.

The study may or may not be a good one, but this statement is more than a little condescending and more than a little inaccurate. I have been involved in the world of science and scientific studies since 1977. My undergraduate major was in molecular genetics and I have been involved in laboratory and clinical studies over the years including having  published and cited work.

However, a scientist knows that what is today's fact is often tomorrow's falacy. I am not saying that the study is wrong, but I do remain skeptical of it, Monsanto and the industry in general. I also remain very skeptical of the business of science. We all know that numbers can be used in many different ways to support arguments and scientific studies can be and are often manipulated toward a desired result. I fear that this is especially the case in industrial science in which scientists' livelihoods rest on the backs of their industrial supporters. I am not saying that the scientists are fudging data or corrupt. I am saying  that it is easy to manipulate data and results to prove a point and that it is easy to withhold data that does not support a point. Whether that is the case with this topic or not I can not say, however, the possibility of it is one reason I remain skeptical of it. Skepticism is a trait that any reputable scientist should have.

The major argument I have been making doesn't even concern the question of direct effects on human health. I am more concerned about the indirect effects on health and the environment based upon needs for increased or persistent need for antibiotic coverage and the potential for development of resistance, etc. I certainly don't trust Monsanto to evaluate that properly. There is certainly the potential with any new technology to have many hidden risks and costs. Some technologies, including many potential uses for recombinant genetics have potential benefits that are readily apparent and worth taking some degree of risk for. I still fail to see that for this technology, even if I were to accept that the potential for direct effect on human health is minimal.

don't believe it is a conspiracy either. I never accused anyone of conspiracy. I just don't think that Monsanto's motives necessarily intertwine with what may be in the longterm best interest of the Earth and its inhabitants. I have admitted that the direct health effects of rBGH may not be significant for humans, although I still remain skeptical even if the scientific methods are flawless. I have seen too many instances in very respected journals where even years later, dogma has ultimately been refuted.

still think that this would be a daunting study to do without the assistance of Monsanto and I doubt that they would give it willingly as they don't have anything to gain from it and potentially a lot to lose. My concerns about the product remain, however, even if I concede that it is likely to be safe as far as direct human health effects on humans ingesting the milk derived from animals to whom it has been applied- see below.

Believe what you will. I have tried to counter your arguments with logic, but have been faced with a lot of ad hominem assumptions. I will not address this issue further with you if you continue to make those assumptions. Although I am not absolutely convinced that the potential for direct health effects are inconsequential, the possibility that they are not is not the crux of my argument. I am personally more concerned about wider issues that are not reflected in the Science article. If you wish to address the ideas directly or the issues I would be very happy to continue this discussion, however, if you continue to simply claim that you are a scientist and thererfore know better on that basis than count me out.

I do not purport to have all the answers, just a large dose of skepticism regarding promises not being kept and unexpected problems developing.

I am not saying that the product should be taken off the market or that because I have concerns and remain skeptical of the product and the motives of the company behind it that everyone else  must follow suit. I do know, however, that as good as science has been and is, the whole concept is changing as the rules change due to the influence of industry and big business. The free flow of ideas is no longer what it was as there is now a much greater emphasis on the need for industrial secrets and the potential financial ramifications of information. This is big business and we must not kid ourselves otherwise. As such the intersts of business and the public are not always necessarily aligned. As such, I remain skeptical. That is different from me saying that the study is wrong. I have never said that nor could I as I do not have the specific expertise to make that assertion. My point is, it really matters little to the argument.

Not having receptors only means that it won't have a specific endocrine type effect. It can still have an immunologic effect. This can be unpredictable as well and vary potentially from person to person. That was one of the biggest problems with porcine insulin.

I believe I studied a thing or two about them in Organic  Chemistryand beyond. To pick on this is truly nitpicking. Nathan, you make a lot of intersting points here. I believe that you are above that.

I got it now. 1) You do not concede any benefit from rBGH milk (although it presumably is cheaper to make, which most would consider beneficial). 2) You can imagine a risk, although you are unable to assess the degree of risk. 3) Therefore risk>reward, avoid rBGH milk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got it now.  1) You do not concede any benefit from rBGH milk (although it presumably is cheaper to make, which most would consider beneficial). 2) You can imagine a risk, although you are unable to assess the degree of risk. 3) Therefore risk>reward, avoid rBGH milk.

That is a pretty good summary of a number of my posts on the matter (thank you) and your statement a fair one. Of course, I must quibble about one point, though :laugh:

While rBGH enhanced milk production may be cheaper in the near term, I am not convinced that it is for the long term given my concerns. As a result I prefer to purchase non-rBGH enhanced milk. I am fortunate enough where I live to be able to buy in our local Hannaford's Supermarket milk from Vermont Family Farms. This milk, though not labeled "organic" and not significantly more expensive than the regular supermarket brands, is promoted as being free of any "artificial hormones" They state on the container,

To satisfy our consumers, all of our farmers pledge not to use artificial growth hormones

In addition, the package reads:

vermont dairy farms are special. And so is Vermont Family Farms Milk. Our farmers believe milk produced by healthy cows in their clean and natural environment has a special freshness unique to Vermont. That's why we treat our farms and cows with care and respect. We care for our cows and the land. Our Vermont farmers specialize in raising milk cows - we even grow our own feed to ensure the highest quality milk. since our farms have a small number of cows, we're able to give special attention to every individual cow. We even know them by name. because of our commitment to our farms, our cows and our state, we pledge that our cows are not treated with any artificial hormones. So you can be surre Vermont Family Farms Milk is the freshest, best tasting milk for your family.

It so happens that this milk is pretty darned good and at least as good as anything else available to us in the supermarket. Is marketing involved with that statement quoted above? Of course. It happens to fill a niche that I like, though. that is supporting smaller scale agriculture close to whom in a way that I feel is responsible to the environment. If there were a similarly labeled product from even closer to my home, I would buy that preferentially. It makes no matter to me whether or not it is labelled "organic". Unfortunately (or fortunately for me and my family), this particular product is not more widely available, although I suspect similar products from other areas may be. I am fortunate that i have the wherewithal to be able to spend a little more on products that i see as potentially having more long term value. As such, I try to put my money where my mouth is. :smile:

One other word about the "organic" industry and why the label is not so important to me. I like to buy a lot of what my family eats locally if possible. This includes essentially all the pork, lamb, chicken and beefalo that we eat. I do not believe that any of the producers that we buy from and we know them all personally are certified organic. They all, however, practice agriculture using sustainable principles (that is another topic in itself - see Slow Food). In fact a couple of them have been selected by Slow Food for their Terra Madre program. One of the reasons they don't go for the certification is that they do use antibiotics occassionally on their animals. They will treat particular problems in individual animals, but they do not use them for standard prophylaxis. I consider that a rational and responsible approach to animal husbandry, that is technically banned by the "organic" certification process or so I understand.


John Sconzo, M.D. aka "docsconz"

"Remember that a very good sardine is always preferable to a not that good lobster."

- Ferran Adria on eGullet 12/16/2004.

Docsconz - Musings on Food and Life

Slow Food Saratoga Region - Co-Founder

Twitter - @docsconz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.