During the last two weeks, several items have appeared in The Daily Collegian related to the issue of bovine growth hormone (BGH) or bovine somatotropin (BST), and its use in dairy cattle. The first article appearing on page 1 of the Feb. 6 Daily Collegian entitled "Hormone for cows protested" had several statements that were totally incorrect.

The recent letter to the editor on Feb. 17 entitled "BGH: Pus in milk," written by Nicolle Perrotto, contained little if any factual information.

I respect the right of anyone to express their views either in demonstrations or in letters to the editor. However, it is important that we know the facts and search for the truth about an issue, which in this case is BST.

All of us in a university, whether faculty or students, should be open minded to seeking the truth, but we still have the right and need to question or debate a particular issue.

With BST, too often the facts have been ignored and the perception or fiction has become reality.

The news media and foes of biotechnology have created fears about the genetically engineered growth hormone that boosts milk production. Consumers' concerns about food additives and food safety are understandable.

As a professor of dairy science involved in teaching and research, my role is to find the facts and truth through research and transmit this information to students and to the public. BST is the most researched area of product in the history of agriculture. Several hundreds of research studies with over 20,000 cows have been conducted throughout the world.

The results of many of these studies have been published in peer-reviewed scientific publications.

Many have been conducted under the strict guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The extensive review and scrutiny of research in this area is perhaps unparalleled in all of science, even with drugs or products for human use.

At Penn State we were involved with five different research studies using BST, beginning in 1985. The results of these studies have been published and are available for anyone to see in the library or on LIAS.

My colleagues and I have been involved in many educational meetings with dairy producers, industry leaders, dairy producers, and the general public.

Our primary purpose was to present the best factual information and to discuss the pros and cons of the issue and not promote BST as was implied in the Feb. 6 article. We have and are using BST on some of the University herd, primarily as a management tool to improve profitability, the same reason that 10 to 15 percent of the dairy herds in the United States are currently using BST.

The facts on BST are well documented.

-- The milk is the same. The public is assured that milk and meat from dairy cows administered BST is the same including safety, composition (protein and fat), taste and nutrition as milk from other cows.

BST has been part of every drop of milk, in very small amounts ever produced by cows and is not changed with BST administration.

In fact, the naturally secreted somatotropin from each cow's pituitary gland is a major hormone related to milk production.

-- Milk quality is similar and antibiotics will not increase. The comments in the Feb. 17 letter to the editor about "Pus in milk" and antibiotic residues are simply not true.

Milk and dairy products are the most highly regulated and wholesome food consumed by humans.

If antibiotics are used to treat any type of disease, the milk from those cows is not sold from the farm.

Every truckload of milk shipped by a dairy producer is tested for antibiotics. At Penn State, we routinely conduct tests on each cow to monitor antibiotic residues before milk is sold. There is no reason to expect that more antibiotics will be used in cows given BST.

BST can help the small family farm, not destroy the farm as implied.

BST is one of the few "size neutral" technologies available in the dairy industry.

Simply stated, the small family farm has the same cost per cow and return per cow as does the large herd.

In fact, the use of BST by small family farms may help them remain competitive in the future.

The government expenditures on the dairy industry will not likely increase this year.

Only about 1 percent of the increase in total milk production in the United States in 1994 can be attributed to BST.

Monsanto and Land 'O Lakes were mentioned in the Feb. 17 letter to the editor. It is true that Monsanto is the only company with FDA approval to market BST, although two other companies are seeking approval.

Monsanto Corp. has invested millions of dollars beginning about 15 years ago to conduct research with BST. They took a huge risk with no guarantee of approval or a dollar return.

I know that Monsanto is far from recapturing their investment in BST and may never do so.

Land 'O Lakes, a dairy cooperative in the upper Midwest and similar to any dairy cooperative in the Northeast, receives milk from dairy producers who may or may not be using BST as a management tool.

There is no BST-free milk produced by any dairy cow, and because the minute amount of BST in milk is not changed when cows are administered BST, there is no way to distinguish milk from untreated and treated cows.

Finally the consumer will be the ultimate beneficiary of BST or other future technologies with adequate quantities of wholesome, safe and economical dairy products.

Future products of biotechnology will continue to increase the eficiency of agriculture production and guarantee adequate supplies of safe food products in the United States and the ever-growing international markets.

All of us must continually seek to find the facts and truth about any new technology and educate the public about the facts rather than fiction.