Have you ever wondered why, when there is a new product released to increase food production, it always comes under scrutiny from people in the general public who have no idea about its intended purpose, but take it upon themselves to become activists? They only know it does not fall into the categories of "low-input sustainable" or "organic" farming; consequently, they are automatically against it. Take, for example, the protest concerning the bovine growth hormone on Friday afternoon that commanded front-page coverage in the Feb. 6 Daily Collegian. This article contained quotes from such activists as a junior sociology major involved in Eco-Action and the writer for Vegetarian Society. Excuse my disrespect, but what firsthand knowledge about BGH or anything else in agriculture could these people possibly have? The answer is none. The only quote from a true expert, Professor Craig Baumrucker, was rather short and, although completely accurate, really did not do much to clarify the true facts about BGH. However, this letter is not to complain about Collegian coverage of the protest; its purpose is to relate the true facts concerning BGH and to dispute the misrepresentation of activists such as the ones mentioned above.

BGH, more commonly known as bST or bovine somatotropin, is a protein hormone that is naturally produced by the pituitary gland of every cow. (Somatotropin is also produced by the human pituitary, except hST contains a different amino acid chain than bST.) The natural form of bST is a protein chain 191 amino acids in length. The commercially available form of bST is identical except for the addition of one more amino acid. In other words, all milk contains bST, even if farmers aren't injecting it into the cows.

bST cannot possibly harm consumers who drink millk. Somatotropins are species specific, which means it is only utilized by the species that produced the hormone. The human body cannot recognize or use bST. Secondly, the amino acids in somatotropin are digested just like the protein in any other food we eat. The end result of the digestion of soybean proteins, for example, and bST proteins in the individual amino acids that make up the protein. This is why bST must be injected into the cow; if administered orally, it would be completely ineffective. However, not only are the activists worried about actually ingesting bST (which is harmless), they falsely believe that using bST will increase the antibiotics present in milk by increasing udder diseases.

The idea that antibiotic-tainted milk reaches consumers is a popular misconception that seriously distorts the facts regarding milk safety. Milk is one of the most heavily USDA safety-regulated foods regarding contaminants such as antibiotics. Every time the milk truck makes a pickup, the driver collects a sample from the farmer's tank to analyze at the lab for antibiotics. If a farmer's milk is found to contain traces of antibiotics, then the entire tanker is condemned and the milk is thrown away. The tests are highly accurate in terms of parts per billion; very slight concentrations can be detected. The farmer who is guilty has to pay for the tanker of discarded milk. Assuming a 6,000 gallon tanker, which is a standard size, the farmer would pay over $6,000 for his mistake. I am sure there are no farmers willing to take such a risk.

In the Collegian article, Mike Ewall, a junior sociology major (an expert in dairy science?) was quoted as saying one of the main goals of the demonstration on Friday was to "protest the University's usage and promotion of the hormone." One of Penn State's duties as a land-grant university is to develop and test new agricultural products and to inform farmers on their usage. The University research generates data that farmers need to determine whether a product such as bST will be profitable. bST is not automatically profitable for every farmer; the cows must be well managed in every respect to make it pay. Using bST as a replacement for poor management simply does not work.

bST is simply another tool that farmers have at their disposal to increase profitability in a world of shrinking profit margins. Andrew Laird, a writer for the Vegetarian Society, is quoted in the Collegian as saying, "small farms that do not use the hormone will not remain competitive." bST and other technology does not drive small farmers out of business; food prices do. Hogs that are worth 35 cents per pound in 1995 were worth 60 cents when Nixon was president. Since the 80s, milk prices have remained the same. This has occurred while inflation has increased tremendously. A hormone such as bST that results in 10 to 12 percent more milk while decreasing the feed per pound of milk by 10 percent is attractive for any farmer in an economic situation such as this. Farmers must expand and use the latest technology in order to stay in business, whether that technology is bST, improved fertilizers, or disease-resistant seeds.

The fact is that whenever agriculture comes under fire, it is by people who typically do not understand the facts. Remember the alar scare in the apple industry a few years ago? Some Washington apple farmers were put into bankruptcy by the incident. They are currently suing the National Resources Defense Council and CBS Television, who initiated media coverage, because of the lies contained in the NRDC report and the subsequent coverage by CBS. Any time there is a change in the status quo of food production and agricultural inputs are increased, there are going to be protests. Farmers are concerned about humanity and the environment; such conservation practices as no-till planting are becoming the norm. Consumers must realize that the most vocal opposition seen in the media are oftentimes the least informed. These people often have no credibility whatsovever. Americans enjoy the cheapest, most plentiful, and most wholesome food supply in the world. Milk is the best source dietary source of calcium and vitamin D. To quit drinking milk because of bST, which poses absolutely no human health risks, is a huge mistake brought about by the misrepresentation of others.