Katie's 3-year checkup was yesterday, and her doctor (who isn't normally over-protective in any way) warned me that it's a good idea to make sure that kids are getting hormone-free milk, because there is a documented connection between hormones in cow's milk and early puberty in kids. And I'm not interested in dealing with puberty any earlier than I have to. :lol: So, I thought I'd pass that along. She's not an *organic only* person or anything like that, and she rarely makes suggestions like this, so I give it more creedence than I would if it came from someone who was always giving this type of advice. :)

Our pedi said the same thing, actually (and she's not a crunchy-type ped). I was one step ahead of her, though, and we buy hormone free milk (and other dairy). :)

we only give our girls hormone free milk for that very reason

I haven't ever seen hormone free milk in a normal grocery store, and am not about to drive more than 30 minutes to the one store I can think of that would have it.....Ttown is not exactly known for forward-thinkingness as to stuff like that. :dunno:

Anne, does your grocery store have a natural food section at all? All organic milk is hormone-free. I found mine at Trader Joe's (all the milk at TJs is hormone-free, even the stuff that's not organic), and it's cheaper there than at my regular grocery store, but it's out of the way, so with gas prices, it's probably a wash. :lol:

I know this subject came up recently in the milk thread...is this something they recommend for both girls and boys or mostly girls?

Anne, does your grocery store have a natural food section at all? All organic milk is hormone-free. I found mine at Trader Joe's (all the milk at TJs is hormone-free, even the stuff that's not organic), and it's cheaper there than at my regular grocery store, but it's out of the way, so with gas prices, it's probably a wash. :lol:

Anne~ If you have Wilcox Farms milk it is hormone free too but not organic. (I bought some at QFC yesterday and I think they have it at Fred Meyer too.)

Anne, does your grocery store have a natural food section at all? All organic milk is hormone-free. I found mine at Trader Joe's (all the milk at TJs is hormone-free, even the stuff that's not organic), and it's cheaper there than at my regular grocery store, but it's out of the way, so with gas prices, it's probably a wash. :lol:

Our Wal-mart sells organic milk.

Horizon Milk is carried pretty much everywhere around here, Anne. Have you looked for that particular brand? I think it's really the only organic milk brand in this area (Maryland).

http://www.horizonorganic.com/images/products/gr_milkfamily.jpg

I've always bought hormone-free or organic milk for Jackson, too. I also try to avoid too much soy as well for the same reasons (phyto-estrogens in soy).

Trader Joe's is a great place to get it, and I just noticed that Costco now carries organic milk, too. :aok: I'm not sure if you have this brand out there or if it's a local/CA-only brand, but Alta Dena milk is hormone-free.

Wow, you learn something new everyday:)

Ooooh, Brooke, we do have that one! Thanks! I didn't know it was organic, just thought it was something fancy to justify the ridiculous prices I've seen for it.

Other Anne, no, out here in the boondocks if you ask for natural foods anything they call you a hippie. :lol: But we do our grocery shopping about 20 minutes away and I have seen the one Brooke posted, so I might have to look for that.

I had heard that but didn't know that it was medically documented! We buy mostly organic food anyway, and only organic dairy. That was largely the reason...

But is organic always hormone free or is there a difference?

I've looked up sites to either agree or dispute the claim about this. Any site that didn't seem fair and stepped onto wearing a aluminum foil hat I wouldn't read. Here is what I've found:
THE FACTS - In 1997, when a large study found that girls were starting puberty sooner than usual, many Americans began to cast a suspicious eye on milk. Could artificial growth hormones that had been widely used on cows since 1993 be speeding development in children?

Sales of organic dairy products took off rapidly, but newer studies have found no link. Instead, if girls are maturing sooner, a notion some scientists still dispute, it may have more to do with obesity than milk.

Advertisement

The early puberty theory came from a study suggesting that many girls were developing breasts and pubic hair between 9 and 10, roughly a year early.

A substance given to cows to increase milk production, called recombinant bovine growth hormone, became a prime suspect. But Dr. Paul Kaplowitz, the author of "Early Puberty in Girls," said that the hormone, if it did make its way into milk, would have no effect. It must be injected, not digested, he said.

A study published in 2001, led by Dr. Kaplowitz, showed that girls who developed sooner tended to have higher body-mass indexes. It also said that the findings of the early puberty study coincided with a rise in nationwide rates of obesity.

THE BOTTOM LINE - Bovine growth hormones are not connected to the early onset of puberty in girls
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/health/08real.html?ex=1115956800&en=b5b65d9bea51bd4f&ei=5070

Hormones in Your Milk

Janet Raloff

Four dairies got their proverbial hands slapped by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for marketing what it charges is "misbranded" milk. The regulatory agency recently issued warning letters to the companies—which sell whole milk, reduced-fat milk, and ice cream—saying that their product labels contain false statements about the food's hormone status.

f4164_1753.JPG


USDA

FDA's Sept. 24 letter to a Sauk Centre, Minn., dairy, for instance, informed the chief manager that the dairy's products are misbranded because its labels "contain the statement 'No Hormones,' which is false." The agency's contention is that naturally occurring hormones are present in all milk and milk products. Indeed, the warning letter charged, "milk cannot be produced in a way that renders it free of hormones." Even a mother's milk is laced with natural hormones.

However, natural hormones aren't what the commercial milk producers have been referring to in their advertising. The dairies' intent was to highlight that their products came from cows never treated with genetically engineered bovine somatotropin, or rBST. U.S. dairy farmers commonly administer this drug, which is virtually identical to a natural bovine hormone, to boost milk production.

FDA's warning letters demanded prompt relabeling of the dairies' products. Failure to do so, it said, could result in product seizures or an injunction prohibiting the sale of the misbranded goods. In fact, all four dairies responded. One withdrew the offending product. The others all relabeled their milk and related goods.

Monsanto in St. Louis is the sole maker of rBST in the United States. Just weeks before the FDA's action on dairy product labels, the company brought suit against Oakhurst Dairy in Portland, Maine, for labeling its products with the words "our Farmer's Pledge not to use artificial growth hormones." That statement appears on every milk product sold by the 82-year-old family-owned dairy. Monsanto's suit asks the U.S. District Court in Boston to make Oakhurst remove the statement from its labeling.

"We are actively fighting Monsanto's efforts, and our argument is a simple one—families have the right to know what is and isn't used in producing the milk they drink," says Stanley T. Bennett in a statement for the dairy. "While we make no claims regarding the science of artificial growth hormones," Bennett says, "we feel strongly that keeping our customers fully informed is the right thing to do."

An account of the lawsuit in the July 8 Portland Press Herald quotes Jennifer Garrett, director of technical services for Monsanto's dairy business, as saying: "We believe Oakhurst labels deceive consumers; they're marketing a perception that one milk product is safer or of higher quality than other milk."

In fact, FDA maintains that food producers "have no basis for claiming that milk from cows not treated with rBST is safer than milk from rBST-treated cows." However, the agency has also stated that manufacturers who use milk from cows not treated with rBST "may voluntarily inform consumers of this fact on their product labels or labeling, provided that the statements are truthful and not misleading."

Does such an FDA statement protect Oakhurst Dairy in the litigation? Monsanto says no. In a prepared statement, the company argues that Oakhurst's labels "fail to fully disclose years of scientific evidence that milk from cows supplemented with rBST is the same as all other milk . . . . Without this information, independent market research shows that many consumers are misled to believe that the milk with labels such as the Oakhurst Dairy label is healthier or safer than other milk." The company cited surveys conducted by North Hampton, Mass.–based MSR Research Group showing that "more than two-thirds of consumers were misled to believe that the milk with the Oakhurst Dairy label was healthier to drink than milk labeled without such a statement, and that more than 60 percent of consumers were also misled to believe that the milk with the Oakhurst Dairy label was safer to drink than milk labeled without such a statement."

The Monsanto-versus-Oakhurst Dairy case has a projected trial date of Jan. 6, 2004.

What is rBST?

Two decades ago, scientists at Cornell University pioneered studies of treating dairy cattle with injections of natural bovine somatotropin (BST). Work by researchers there and elsewhere showed that the hormone alters how cows use nutrients—causing them to divert more of their energy intake into milk generation rather than growth (SN: 5/5/84, p. 284). Indeed, early studies in New Zealand had shown that cows that naturally produce more milk than others in their herd do tend to secrete more of the natural form of this pituitary hormone. Cows now getting a genetically engineered version of the hormone typically produce at least 10 percent more milk than other cows do.

Over the years, some scientists have worried that the hormone treatments seed milk with rBST residues. According to the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA), all milk "contains naturally occurring BST. Milk from rBST-supplemented cows contains no more BST than milk from cows not supplemented with rBST."

Critics of the therapy have also argued that milk from rBST-treated cows may develop elevated concentrations of insulinlike growth factor-1 (IGF-1). This protein is important to milk production, bone growth, and cell division in all animals, including humans.

Thirteen years ago, both the FDA and a National Institutes of Health expert panel reviewed data on the milk from rBST-treated animals and pronounced it safe (SN: 12/15/90, p. 372). FDA went on to approve sale of the milk a decade ago.

Today, an estimated third of U.S. dairy producers administer rBST to their cows, IDFA maintains. In a position statement on the hormone, it reports that "Canada and the European Union, which have not approved rBST for use in their dairy herds, concede that there is no public health risk associated with milk from supplemented cows."

Argues IDFA: "FDA and the World Health Organization concluded in 1992 that any reported increase in IGF-1 levels in milk from rBST-supplemented cows is still insignificant, a finding that has been repeatedly reinforced by other scientific bodies." Moreover, FDA says, IGF-1 in breast milk "is at about the same concentration as that found in bovine milk" from both rBST-treated and untreated cows (SN: 1/27/96, p. 52).

None of these statements, however, has stemmed debate on use of the hormone. Natural food advocates and some environmentalists have argued that rBST injections are unnecessary and risk unduly stressing cows. FDA and livestock scientists have discounted the latter. What's more, some alternative strategies for increasing milk production, such as milking cows more often, in themselves stress the animals (SN: 5/5/84, p. 282).

Critics of rBST ask why so many U.S. dairies choose to inject their livestock with the engineered hormone when the nation is already experiencing a milk glut. The answer, agricultural economists say, is that dairying doesn't offer farmers much profit. So any treatment that allows dairies to get hundreds to thousands more gallons from a herd each year looks mighty attractive.
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20031101/food.asp

Here is an article from the other side, however, the site references another site that says that a bra causes breast cancer, soooooooooo...... take it with a grain of salt.
In 1950, the average twelve-year old Japanese girl was 4'6" tall and weighed 71 pounds. By 1975, the average Japanese girl, after changing her diet to include milk and dairy products containing 59 different bioactive hormones, had grown an average of 4 1/2 inches and gained 19 pounds. In 1950, the average Japanese girl had her first menstrual cycle at the age of 15.2 years. Twenty five years later, after a daily intake of estrogen and progesterone from milk, the average Japanese girl was ovulating at the age of 12.2 years, three years younger. Never before had such a dramatic dietary change been seen in such a unique population study.
http://www.health101.org/art_Milk_and_Girls.htm

But is organic always hormone free or is there a difference?

I've never encountered an organic dairy product that was from animals that were treated w/ hormones.


In fact, FDA maintains that food producers "have no basis for claiming that milk from cows not treated with rBST is safer than milk from rBST-treated cows." However, the agency has also stated that manufacturers who use milk from cows not treated with rBST "may voluntarily inform consumers of this fact on their product labels or labeling, provided that the statements are truthful and not misleading."

I've read this on all the dairy products, but it doesnt necessarily mean I have to believe it, KWIM?

I had heard that but didn't know that it was medically documented!
Its not medically documented.

All you can do is make an educated decision. The FDA says that its harmless according to study after study, but honestly, I am just skeptical and have the right to be. I mean, the FDA approves medicines and then comes back and pulls them off the market b/c they are killing people. So the FDA isnt God.

As far as it having to do with obesity, my neighbor took her 2nd grade daughter to the doctor for her checkup and asked about her little breast buds and her pedi suggested the same thing. And her daughter is anything but obese. She's a skinny little athletic thing!
So I guess I am going to play it safe.

That's how I feel too, Karri. :nod: I'd rather err on the side of caution.

Yes, Karri, ITA as well. In fact, we buy organic foods across the board to err on the side of caution. I mean, I show no ill effects from having been raised on non-organic foods...but still! I also feel very good about the fact that organic farming methods benefit the earth as well as my own family's health. I know that's a little bit off-topic--but it's true that we need to concern ourselves with the environmental impact of farming on such a large scale.

Yeahp! Another reason we lean towards organic! :)

We get organic milk (Horizon, actually), for the kids, and ourselves as well. Not only for the reasons mentioned, but I just think it tastes better.

I've noticed since this thread that all our "regular" milk has a label on it about being hormone free. It could be that I noticed it b/c of this thread, but I really actually think it's new...and it's not just on one brand but several, including the house brand for various supermarket chains. I wonder if they just caught on to these news stories and added the label?

I still haven't seen any hormone free milk at any of the regular grocery stores.