With the echoes of "Get involved" still echoing through my ears I am happy to see that Penn State has activist groups on campus that are still functioning. Amy Oakes' and Seth Wilberding's coverage of the Eco-Action/Vegetarian Society of Central Pennsylvania is encouraging, although a few questions remained unanswered. For instance, Mike Ewall of Eco-Action claims that BGH (bovine growth hormone) is detrimental to consumers. Although he is articulate in making the connection between BGH, mastitis, and the injection of antibodies, Ewall never indicated if the antibodies stay in the cow's milk after the pasteurization process or what kind of damage that increased levels of antibodies in consumer's milk would cause.

Professor Craig Baumrucker's response to Eco-Action's claims was even less informative and amounted to something like, there IS increased levels of udder infection but it is NOT any different than other specially bred cows. This may be true, but the issue is the instance of BGH does increase udder infection and that udder infection is treated with substances that may be harmful to consumers.

Two questions that I would like to see answered are: (1) Are significant levels of antibiotics present in milk that will be sold to consumers? (2) Are these levels high enough to cause problems in consumers?

If BGH is found to lead to elevated levels of antibiotics in milk that are high enough to cause resistant strains of bacteria then I would have to support the banning of BGH. A 10 to 15 percent increase in milk production, and the profits of Agri-business, is a benefit that would not outweigh the cost of filtering harmful substances to the general population. Furthermore, antibiotics are generally controlled by medical doctors presumably to control the effects of the spreading of bacteria that could become resistant to antibiotic treatment. It would be truly detrimental to liberally give out prescription drugs to the population hidden in presumably safe consumer milk.