Milk -- it does a body good in its pure white and wholesome state. Science -- it's done a body good with new vaccines, cures and innovative ways to get things done.

Milk and science for the most part go hand-in-hand in a homogeneous mixture, but with the synthetic hormone bovine somatotropin (bST), it's like mixing oil and water.

The dairy cow has caused a national controversy with the Food and Drug Administration's approval of bST, a hormone that is injected into dairy cows to increase milk production. The approval has sparked a nationwide debate about the hormone and whether it will harm the milk or milk prices. The FDA says it will not. But the hormone's drawbacks are definitely worthy of note.

The hormone is unnecessary -- production simply exceeds the demand. Few benefit when technology is developed for technology's sake. While the hormone could mean lower milk prices for consumers, dairy farmers are already dumping extra milk to raise the average price for a gallon of milk. It seems highly unlikely that milk buyers' wallets will feel any heavier in the near future.

And no one is absolutely certain what using this hormone will do to milk. Although bST is naturally produced by cows, scientific studies have shown administering the drug to cows makes the animals more prone to mastitis, an infection of the cow's udder. Like people, cows are under stress when they are performing their job. Extending the production period will only provide additional stress on a cow's body.

By approving the drug, the FDA has dealt a blow that could be fatal to small farmers already struggling to remain financially viable. Although the hormone may significantly increase the profits of large, commercial farms, the family farms will not gain. An important part of America's backbone could stand to lose significantly. No one wants to add to the list of people who need government assistance to survive.

Let's keep the cows on grass -- not on drugs.