Skip to main content

View Diary: BIG BIG BIG Victory This Week (After 20 Years of Waiting) (194 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The entire IGF-1 argument is crap (0+ / 0-)

    the pus stuff, I have always agreed with. The "negative energy balance' stuff sounds like a new age anti-gravity device. As usual, an emotion driven diary lacking science.

    ....

    ..Cry

    "There is no theorem that says (all) the interesting things in the world are conserved, only the total of everything." Richard Feynman

    by yuriwho on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 11:16:38 PM PDT

    •  Not according to the court: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      melo, Lashe, FarWestGirl

      Found in the link in the diary, to Jill's blog:

      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]

      Emotion-driven diary?  Are you nuts?  It's all about the court's decision and loaded with facts.  It appears you didn't even bother to read it.

      Sarah Palin: All pistol and no squint.

      by CanyonWren on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 01:07:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This appears to be an emotion-driven (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lashe

      comment, lacking evidence.

      "negative-energy balance" is a pretty straightforward term, if one isn't on a witch-hunt: the cows are drawing on reserve energy stores (presumably fat, but possibly not), because they are producing so much milk.

      anyone losing weight by reducing their caloric intake is similarly maintaining a negative-energy balance.

      i don't know what sort of scientist you think you are, but apparently you aren't a very wise or insightful one.

      To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

      by UntimelyRippd on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 06:33:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site