With frappuccinos and lattes already pushing $5, Starbucks is making changes that will cause coffee lovers to dig even deeper into their wallets -- needlessly. Starbucks has stopped using dairy products produced by cows given recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) in company-owned stores in a few parts of the country and hopes to eventually stop using it in all locations. In an era when "chemicals" and "toxins" are being banned and eliminated from all sort of products without scientific proof such bans are necessary, Starbuck's move away from rBGH-supplemented dairy is unsurprising.
rBGH is a supplement given to dairy cows during the middle phase of lactation to encourage higher milk production. A Starbucks spokeswoman claims the company's decision to avoid dairy products from rBGH-supplemented cows is a response to consumer preference, but those preferences are clearly not based in scientific fact.
Thousands of scientific studies of rBGH have been reviewed by (among others) the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the American Medical Association, and the World Health Organization. The studies have concluded that rBGH does not adversely affect animal health and that dairy products produced from cows given rBGH are safe for humans.
The FDA approved rBGH for commercial use over a decade ago, and subsequent scientific evidence reaffirms the decision.
Although rBGH does increase the amount of the hormone called insulin growth factor (IGF) in milk, and though that hormone when produced by people's own bodies is linked to cancers, hypertension, and other disorders, increased IGF in milk does not pose a risk: It is a protein and as such is digested like all other dietary proteins. Any hormonal activity is destroyed as the IGF is digested.
The health of the cows given rBGH has been studied extensively, and no link has been found between hormone treatment and bovine health problems. Claims of udder inflammation in the supplemented cows are misleading because the small increase in inflammation is simply due to high levels of milk production and should not be attributed directly to rBGH.
Says Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health, "Milk from rBGH-treated cows is indistinguishable from milk from non-treated cows. Giving cows rBGH does not change the composition or wholesomeness of their milk in any way, and treatment does not affect the amount of rBGH found in the milk."
Starbucks' decision to switch to dairy produced from non-rBGH cows is sure to drive up the cost of their already-pricey drinks. Without the supplement, they will need more cows (and thus more feed, land, and labor) to produce the same amount of milk. Since there is no evidence that rBGH is harmful to either cows or humans, perhaps Starbucks should take the attitude "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Julianne Chickering is a research associate at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).
See also:
"'Natural' Milk -- Better for Whom?"
"Consumer Groups Protest Starbucks Decision Not to Serve Milk From Growth-Hormone Supplemented Cows"
and ACSH's 1994 report on the related issue of rBST use in cows
