For every million cows treated with rbST each year, 6.6 billion gallons of water are conserved, the amount of animal feed consumed is reduced by more than 3 billion pounds, the land required to raise the cattle and grow their food is reduced by more than 417 square miles, more than 5.5 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel are saved, greenhouse gas emissions are lowered by 30,000 metric tons (because fewer cows means less methane produced by bovine intestinal tracts), and manure production is cut by about 3.6 million tons.

To anon32691, cats may like to drink cows milk, but they shouldn't. A large percentage of cats are lactose intolerant so it will make them sick or give them diarrhea or gastrointestinal issues.

So, just because they like it doesnt mean they should have it. It's like my dog, the speed and veracity with which he eats his food is not an indication of how much he likes the taste

Can anyone tell me a popular brand of canned(evaporated) milk that iS rBST free?

rBST free is the way to go! Stop the greed!

To anon21788: Why is that we always give cats *and* kittens that "saucer of milk"? You can't tell me cats don't like milk.

Consumers should be free to choose foods that they are buying. Information such as how our foods are produced should be made easily available to us. We all have the right to know where our food comes from. I would never leave the decision to scientists or governments.

A European Union scientific commission stated that the use of rBST substantially increased health problems with cows, including foot problems, mastitis and injection site reactions, impinged on the welfare of the animals and caused reproductive disorders. The report concluded that, on the basis of the health and welfare of the animals, rBST should not be used.

The concern about human health is mostly unbased speculation, but the decrease in animal health is very evident. When you think about it, it makes sense that altering the biological content of animals designed through evolution to balance health with milk production would cause significant health problems.

I think it is inhumane and cruel to artificially alter the body content of living animals in ways that may cause health problems in cows to only produce 10%-20% more milk, and I'm welcome to arguments to the contrary, but I don't think legitimate ones exist.

By the way, it is estimated that the world produces one and a half times the amount of food the world needs already. The concern with food isn't supply, it's distribution. Also milk is a relatively inefficient conversion of calories from grass or corn fed to cows compared to just eating plants, so it's hardly the drink that will solve the world's hunger problems, although it is very nutritious.

rBST may be harmful - and it may be best that we avoid it - but let's not get too self-righteous and make broad claims like "there's no better way than the natural way."

Snake bites, falling off cliffs and cyanide are all natural. Do you like living that way? Pasteurization, open heart surgery, homogenization, c-sections, cell phones, tractors, roads, disease resistant hybrids and so much more have allowed this earth to support its 6,000,000,000 people and we may never know how many lives are saved by "unnatural" means.

There is no better way than the natural way. It is that way for a reason. If cows were supposed to mass-produce milk in such a quantity, then they would have been created from the beginning that way.

If you have ever noticed the natural things in life are the most efficient and pure things in life. Such as a human heart. It beats from the beginning to the end of your whole entire life. Lets see a human invent something with that technology. Stick with the best of everything. The natural foods in life are the way they were intended to be used.

I agree with Anon19236, if you treat those cows with rbst than it goes to humans as well. And look at the europe. yes they dont have use of hormones in the system and look at them, they have fewer people with cancers and all kind of disease and they have free healthcare here in big USA they are poisoning us and our kids with hormones and then they charge us enormous amount of money to treat ourselves with same poison pills, radiation, surgeries and etc..... i strongly agree that this is all about money and big USA have to many lawyers and pharmaceutical company have billions of dollars to pay their lawyers and little people like us like consumers are sitting around and doing anything about it cause we don't have enough money but we have more voices to stop it!

I just find it interesting that humans are the only creatures that continue to drink milk once weaned from their mothers. No other animal/mammal does.

This ignorance is annoying me. As a dairy farmer, I can say that the use of rBST is not in any way harming cows or consumers. You can disagree with me all you want, but that statement has been scientifically proven numerous times. I also drink my own milk, not organic milk (also because I disagree with those practices, but that is a can of worms I will not open) and it has not harmed me. The only reason it is banned in parts of Europe is because consumer demand. But we can not let ignorance determine what is sold and what is not. This supplement has been used for years and nobody found anything wrong with it, why now?

Whether or not to use/ingest rBST is a very simple issue. If you are injecting cows with unnatural levels of hormones, it is obviously going to negatively affect not only the cow itself, but you, the consumer who is drinking that cow's milk or eating any of it's byproducts. Modern technology is going too far trying to mass produce animal products, and pharmaceutical companies do not care about the consumer's health, they only care about making profits. I bet most of the people who advocate for the use of hormones to make money, drink only organic milk and wouldn't dream of giving it to their children. It's all about making money. People have been drinking milk and eating meat without hormones for thousands of years, why should we start now? I have a feeling that the use of biotechnology in our foods are the cause of many diseases/illnesses that are killing people all over the world. Please, choose wisely when buying your groceries, check the labels, and try to buy organic products if you can.

BST is a hormone which means it's a protein. Ingesting it would denature it, rendering it inactive. People are taller, develop earlier, live longer than their grandparents because quality of living is higher. It has nothing to do with what's in the food but rather the quality of food you eat. A person with a healthier diet is going to develop faster or grow closer to their maximum potential than someone with a nutrient poor diet. Plus there's the whole realm of genetic expression and recessive genes but that's a whole other discussion. There's more to it than "somebody's tainted the meat!". Do a little research and it will make sense.

All I can say is that these last 2 generations are developing sooner. They are taller and bigger than there parents... And I have a feeling that these pro-hormone posters either are using hormones themselves or work for Monsanto or a company owned by Monsanto...

What does this do to our young daughters development when they drink milk from cows injected with this hormone? and what studies or facts support our childrens health when they ingest this milk? Is this the first generation of children to be given this milk?

Whoever posted the last comment, they are wrong. rBST doesn't help cattle live longer ... it actually takes years off of their lifespan.

BST is good for its use and can help older cows live longer healthier lives

Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin is one of the greater advances to the modern Dairy industry. Increasing the productive capacity of the dairy cow not only increases efficiency, it also allows the animal to maintain a high DMI (Dry matter intake). This benefits the cow by constantly maintaining a health rumen environment, hence a more comfortable life. Under proper management techniques, cattle treated with rBST can stay in production for several lactations, on par, if not better than animals without rBST treatment.

Cattle (and animals in general) are not able to communicate their feelings to humans. Therefore, we have had to take steps to monitor cow comfort through solid, scientific means: stress-hormone levels in blood. NO scientific studies have found statistically significant increases in stress indicator hormones in cattle treated with rBST. Cattle still live healthy, low stress lives with the treatment of rBST.

Lastly, Hormones in Milk:

There is no way to measure the actual amount of somatotropin in milk, as it is a naturally occurring hormone, and is present in milk regardless of treatment with rBST. It is also a protein hormone; specifically coded to its target. Even if there were hormones in the milk, the pasteurization process would denature the protein, effectively rendering the hormone biologically inactive.

Some dairy producers still have problems with the use of rBST in cattle. However, when it comes down to it, it is all economics. Some producers will not use it as they can pocket a premium for "cows not treated with rBST" milk. Other producers look on a macroeconomic scale. With an increase in supply, the price for milk will go down, reducing revenue to the producer. However, following this logic, farms could just start dumping milk to raise the milk price, correct?

When it comes down to it, rBST is here and here to stay. As we face a growing global population, we must be able to feed more people with fewer resources. The answer to this is technology, be it rBST, GM crops, or more efficient food systems.

If a consumer wants to buy bst free milk please go for it, but please refuse to pay more for it than milk that is not labeled as such. Right now a farmer might get a 1 percent premium for giving up what may or may not be a profitable technology. If you want to support farmers who produce your food the way you want it produced look for a farm that retails it's own milk--don't support the price gougers.

It is ineffective to start using bst late in a cow's lactation.

Using bst can actually keep a cow more fit in late lactation. If a cow goes too long before she gets pregnant she will drop off in production long before she is ready to dry off. If she is eating the same high energy diet her high producing herdmates are she will get over conditioned or fat. If she is treated with extra bst she can continue to put that energy into making milk rather than getting "out of shape" which could cause more problems by the next lactation. This is where bst really can do some good, when the normal gestation cycle gets a little out of whack, using bst can help keep that cow productive rather than on her way to MacDonalds