I did it again. Racing through the store, I grabbed an item I needed, only to find out I'd paid for less.
In other words, one doesn't want to be around my house when I get up early and discover "fat-free half-and-half" in my refrigerator. Talk about a contradiction in terms and a big "yuck."
It's worse when I discover I've actually spent more for something "organic," whatever that means.
I know, I know, I need to slow down.
In any event, I picked up chocolate milk for my kids this past weekend as a treat because we were all going to the beau's house for dinner and he's not long on milk of any stripe.
Later, I looked at one side of the Hershey's box and a consumer message said that the milk was "from cows NOT TREATED with rbST" (or recombinant bovine somatotropin or recombinant bovine growth hormone). But if one turns the box around, it reads: "no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST treated and non-rbST treated cows."
So it's "Buy me, I'm better!" And on the other side, "You may be paying more for this product for no reason!"
Welcome to the hormone wars.
BST is a naturally occurring growth hormone in cows; some have more and some less. Cows with more of the hormone produce more milk. It was first discovered in the 1930s, and by the 1980s recombinant bST (rbST) was developed. This means the hormone is grown quickly in labs with the use of natural bacteria. The bacteria are then killed, leaving large amounts of the rbST genetically identical to the original. This is then injected into some cows to increase milk production, making it more cost effective. And controversial.
But (news flash) all milk -- even that entirely untreated and wholly organic -- is by definition loaded with growth hormones and has been since the beginning of time. That's what breast milk is wherever it comes from. Hormones.
Yes, it's true that the controversial rbST is actually banned in several countries. For starters, opposition to any bioengineering is much stronger in Canada and overseas than here. But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health have done extensive studies on the hormone and its byproducts, including a growth hormone called IGF-1.
The agencies have found that rbST does not pose a risk to humans. Not least of all because the natural hormone, which is actually found in equal concentrations in milk from treated cows and untreated cows, doesn't survive pasteurization, much less human digestion. Moreover, human growth receptors don't recognize bST, recombinant or otherwise, so it can't produce an effect anyway. (For more, including information on concerns about IGF-1, visit FDA.gov, and NIH.gov.)
The controversy over whether to eat foods with hormones reminded me of a recent article by social commentator Mary Eberstadt. The Hoover Institution scholar penned a fascinating piece in Policy Review earlier this year titled, "Is Food the New Sex?"
Eberstadt argues that we have an inherent need to make moral value judgments when it comes to our appetites. But because as a culture we've decided we will no longer do so about sex, which today is only about our "tastes," we create artificial restraints on another appetite. Food.
"Is it organic?" "Is it locally grown?" "I can't eat that -- it's from a corporate farm -- that would be wrong!" And so, Eberstadt says, as a culture we've actually reversed the moral poles of food and sex.
Well, not this mom.
So, back to the chocolate milk. I suppose some parents might have felt they made a "moral choice" in putting the "no rbST" milk into the cart. When I realized what I'd done, I just felt silly.
(Betsy Hart hosts the "It Takes a Parent" radio show on WYLL-AM 1160 in Chicago. Reach her through hartmailbox-mycolumn(at)yahoo.com. For more stories, visit scrippsnews.com.)
FROM THE HART
Post new comment