[MedicalConspiracies] FOX News Reporters Fired For For Not Lying About RBGH Cows Milk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0AL4yml3bw

Big Victory Against rbGH!

by: Jill Richardson
Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 18:32:09 PM PDT
http://www.lavidalo cavore.org/ diary/4056/ big-victory- against-rbgh

Excerpt from court case in Ohio :

.......The court challenged the FDA's finding that there is "no measurable
compositional difference" between milk from rbGH-treated cows and milk from
untreated cows. According to those who have worked on this issue for nearly two
decades now (maybe more), the FDA's claim that there was no compositional
difference between milk from rbGH-treated and untreated cows was THE MAJOR
roadblock to any good regulation. And the court finally struck it down, citing
three reasons why the milk differs:

1. Increased levels of the hormone IGF-1,
2. A period of milk with lower nutritional quality during each lactation, and
3. Increased somatic cell counts (i.e. more pus in the milk). .......

.....Below, you will find the exact language of the court's ruling, as well as
testimony submitted to the FDA's Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee all the
way back in 1993 by Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist at Consumers' Union.

Amazing how it only took 17 years to get the truth legally recognized.. ....
(because big business controls the FDA!!!)

Another excerpt:

The ruling said:
The district court held that the composition claims were inherently
misleading because 'they imply a compositional difference between those
products that are produced with rb[ST] and those that are not,' in
contravention of the FDA's finding that there is no measurable compositional
difference between the two. This conclusion is belied by the record, however,
which shows that, contrary to the district court's assertion, a compositional
difference does exist between milk from untreated cows and conventional milk
("conventional milk," as used throughout this opinion, refers to milk from
cows treated with rbST). As detailed by the amici parties seeking to strike
down the Rule, the use of rbST in milk production has been shown to elevate
the levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), a naturally-occurring
hormone that in high levels is linked to several types of cancers, among
other things. The amici also point to certain studies indicating that rbST
use induces an unnatural period of milk production during a cow's "negative
energy phase." According to these studies, milk produced during this stage is
considered to be low quality due to its increased fat content and its
decreased level of proteins. The amici further note that milk from treated
cows contains higher somatic cell counts, which makes the milk turn sour more
quickly and is another indicator of poor milk quality. This evidence
precludes us from agreeing with the district court's conclusion that there is
no compositional difference between the two types of milk. In addition, and
more salient to the regulation of composition claims like "rbST free," the
failure to discover rbST in conventional milk is not necessarily because the
artificial hormone is absent in such milk, but rather because scientists have
been unable to perfect a test to detect it. [emphasis added]

READ COURT RULING, & more at
http://www.lavidalo cavore.org/ diary/4056/ big-victory- against-rbgh