The study concluded that there were no differences in antibiotic levels in the milk samples. The purpose of the study stated, "the objective of this study was to compare these endpoints for conventional, rbST-free, and organic milk.," (Vicini, Etherton, & Etherton et al., p. 1199). By the time conclusions were drawn, the topic of rBST and organic milk, as stated in the research objectives, had been completely abandoned and replaced by conclusions regarding antibiotics, which are required to be zero for any milk, regardless of origin, that ends up on retail shelves.
The only studies that are provided to the public, and which are the basis of policy decisions, are highly suspect due to the financial interests between Monsanto and the research laboratory. The sampling techniques used, invalidate the conclusions drawn. It may also be noted that this study was conducted in response to the decision of several large retail chains to transition to rBST free milk in 2008 due to consumer demand (Kroger, 2008; the Daily Green, 2008).
Conclusions and Recommendations
An examination of studies concerning rBST and the effects on human beings was marked by only a handful of studies. The sampling methods and conditions under which these studies were conducted must be considered suspect. However, these studies appear to be the most widely advertised and cited in the mass media. The mass media and scientific community only considered studies that directly address rBST itself, but they do not consider the by-products of the metabolism of rBST in humans. There were many more studies conducted on the effects of rBST in cattle, than on humans. None could be located that consider the effects of rBST in human beings, unless one wishes to consider the unpublished report by Monsanto.
Use of rBST was approved for use in human beings without any valid short-term studies conducted that usually accompany FDA approval of pharmaceuticals that will find their way into the human body. The FDA has different approval methods for food additives and for drugs. A food additive does not have to go through phase I, II, and III testing...
More objectivity is however expected from scientists, but their opinions also vary. Specifically, the opinions of those who support growth hormones and those who reject them are all derived from scientific evidence. This in turn means that the results of scientific research could be manipulated and influenced so that the findings are indicative of the desires of those who initiated the study. In this particular sense, the most pertinent situation
GMO has been touted by companies like Monsanto as safe and cost-effective, providing food solutions for millions of people in developed and under-developed countries. However, new research indicates GMO foods may not be as safe as believed. Laws like the GMO food labeling bill passed in 2016 allow consumers to be informed in what ingredients comprise their favorite food products. Why? Because GMO foods are not healthy. Thesis: Studies show
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now