Love for Life

Cloned Milk Use Soon To Be Sanctioned – January 8, 2008

When presented with a cloned animal, mineral, or vegetable, one's expectation is to find an identical copy of the original. Sometime in mid-January of 2008, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are expected to approve cloned milk and cloned meat for America's food supply.

Consumers will be denied the right to have a warning label revealing whether their dairy or meat product comes from a cloned animal. Milk from cloned cows is not the same as the milk it is replacing. Milk from cloned cows is very different and that conclusion is based upon real science which regulatory agencies such as FDA and USDA are ignoring with extreme prejudice and deceit.

FDA and USDA have incorrectly determined that milk from cloned cows is safe to drink, and requires no testing or warning label. This conclusion was drawn from a single flawed study, one of the poorest designs that I have ever reviewed. The so-called scientific study is unscientific. It is a biased presentation of data brought to you by the same people who developed the cloning technology.

The smoking gun study was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal called 'Cloning and Stem Cells.' Remarkably, the Editor-in-Chief, Ian Wilmut, Ph.D., writes these words in an editorial contained in that same November 3, 2003 issue (Volume 5, number 3): "Experience shows that it is very difficult to predict either the outcome of research or the ways in which new techniques will be applied."

I spoke with the senior author of the study (she teaches at the University of Utah) and was surprised that she did not perform an assay on the levels of bovine growth hormone (bGH) or insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I) in milk. I was even more surprised at her lack of knowledge regarding protein hormones. Her analyses included only caseins and blood proteins. Before my critique of the milk study performed by Marie K. Walsh, et. al., you should understand four major variables that must be considered when testing milk.

First, every cow is different. Every cow produces a milk containing varying amounts of fat, proteins, and hormones.

Second, there are distinct differences between species of cows. For example, milk from Jerseys or Guernseys might have more protein than milk from Holsteins, while Brown Swiss might have a higher fat content.

Third, herds of cows on different farms eat different diets, so milk from different feeds can produce distinct differences in mineral content, certain fats (such as conjugated linoeic acid), and protein yield.

Fourth, cows experience fourteen different lactation cycles. Milk yield and milk components differ greatly from one cycle to another. Each time the scientists found evidence of a difference, they dismissed that difference by blaming an error in the design protocol, such as feed differences between herds. That excuse-making might be appropriate for cocktail party banter, but it is not appropriate for a publication in a scientific journal.

Note to scientists: design your studies well, and eliminate such tainted extraneous variables. Sadly, none of these methods were employed in the above study, which was performed in a helter-skelter fashion on a herd of only 15 lactating cows and only 6 control animals. The milk from cloned cows
represented five distinct genetic lines and three different breeds. The small size of the sample tested should ring bells regarding the validity of this study. To be performed properly on such a small sample, the only way to analyze milk is to design a study in which 15 cloned and 15 control cows are raised on the same farm and fed the same feed. By definition, the entire study is significantly flawed and therefore invalid, but it is interesting to compare the
conclusions, and analyze whether their own data supports those conclusions.

The overall conclusion of the authors, as published in the abstract (page 213), is: "Our results lead us to conclude that there are no obvious differences in milk composition produced from cloned cows compared to non-cloned cows."

I carefully examined the available data from tables 1-5 on pages 216-218. In order to perform proper statistical analyses of data, one must possess data from each animal. In this case, the data is proprietary and unavailable. Therefore, I relied upon the data, as presented, and subtracted and divided when
appropriate. Here are my findings. Keep in mind the conclusion of the researchers that there are no obvious differences between cloned and uncloned milk.

Milk from cloned Brown Swiss cows contains more 12.5% more protein and 5% less fat than un-cloned Brown Swiss cows.

Milk from cloned Holsteins contains more 10% protein and 10% less fat than milk from normal Holsteins.

Milk from a mixed Holstein/Jersey breed contains more 10% more protein and 13% less fat.

Farmers and dairymen are not be happy with these numbers. Dairy farmers receive premiums for milk with high fat content. Fat becomes ice cream, cheese, and butter. Less fat means translates into smaller profits. Somatic Cell Count (SCC) revealed an average count of 225 million pus cells per litre of milk from cloned cows, and only 165 million pus cells per liter of milk from non-cloned cows.

Considering the fact that the 15 cows in the cloned herd are pampered investments, and receive the greatest amount of care and dairy management, this result must be very disturbing to dairy industry executives. That is sure to make farmers unhappy too. Increased protein counts are like red-light danger signals posted at railroad crossings. Bells ring; lights flash. What happens to protein hormones?

Do levels of IGF-I and bGH increase too? Consumers will not know the answers until milk is tested. What is the potential risk to consumers? Cloned milk containsincreased protein. IGF-I is a protein. IGF-I has been identifiedas a key factor in the growth of every human cancer. See:
http://www.notmilk.com/b.html

It is now too late to contact your state department of agriculture, and your state FDA office because just as in some NBA basketball games of the past few years, the outcome has been previously determined because the game has been fixed. The referee is crooked. Can you do something? Sure! Alert fellow consumers. Email a letter to the editor of your local newspaper. Contact information: http://www.refdesk.com/paper.html#natnews .

NOTE: Newspapers like 'letters to the editor' which contain less than 200 words. Please edit the above in any way you deem appropriate. Include your phone number so that the letter can be verified and then published. The effort you make today can make a difference. Please email a letter.

"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not." --Dr. Seuss .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SAMPLE LETTER (196 words)

Cloned Milk Scam to Become Official Next Week

When presented with a cloned product or concept, one's expectation is to find an identical copy of the original.

The FDA and USDA are expected to soon approve cloned milk and cloned meat for America's food supply .

Milk from cloned cows is not the same as the milk it is replacing. Milk from cloned cows is very different.

FDA and USDA have incorrectly determined that milk from cloned cows is safe to drink, and requires no testing or warning label.

This conclusion was drawn from a smoking gun study published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal called "Cloning and Stem Cells on November 3, 2003
(Volume 5, number 3).

Data from the study contradict the author's conclusions.

Milk from cloned Brown Swiss cows contains more 12.5% more protein and 5% less fat than un-cloned Brown Swiss cows.

Milk from cloned Holsteins contains more 10% protein and 10% less fat than milk from normal Holsteins.

Milk from a mixed Holstein/Jersey breed contains more 10% more protein and 13% less fat.

The researchers failed to test levels of controversial substances Such as the bovine growth hormone or insulin-like growth factor(IGF-I).

What is the potential risk to consumers? Cloned milk containsincreased protein. IGF-I is a protein. IGF-I has been identifiedas a key factor in the growth of every human cancer. See: http://www.notmilk.com/b.html

SIGN YOUR NAME
PROVIDE YOUR PHONE NUMBER (NOT FOR PUBLICATION)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Robert Cohen
http://www.notmilk.com