Organic vs. Regular

As a registered dietitian and spokesperson for the National Dairy Council,
I am increasingly asked about the health aspects of organic versus conventionally produced milk. As a health professional, it becomes important to be educated on this debate to encourage adequate key nutrient intake as supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the American Dietetic Association. When evaluating health claims, research thus far does not support a health advantage of organic over conventionally produced milk for any segment of the population. In fact, strict government standards ensure that both types of milk are pure, safe and nutritious.

The good news is both organic and conventionally produced milk contain the same unique package of nutrients that make dairy foods an important part of a healthy diet. This contribution of key nutrients has been recognized by credible health organizations including the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, ADA, National Medical Association, American Cancer Society and American Heart Association, among others.

Label statements on organic milk refer to farm management practices, not the milk itself. The definition of organic milk as set forth by the USDA includes four requirements which seem to be the root of the confusion from which questions arise.

The first question generally involves hormones. According to an article authored by Karen Collins, R.D., on MSNBC.com, milk that is labeled “USDA organic” must come from cows that have not been treated with bovine growth hormone (bGH), also referred to as bST, to increase milk production. People who focus on this goal express concerns that hormones in milk could raise the risk of hormone-related cancers or lead to higher levels of an insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) linked with cancer.

However, bGH naturally occurs in cows, so any additional administration is only supplemental. bGH is a protein hormone, a trace amount of which is present in all milk including organic and rbST free. Just like any other protein, it is digested and therefore destroyed by enzymes and acid in our digestive tract. Dale Bauman, a professor of animal science at Cornell University, emphasizes that if IGF-1 were slightly higher in milk from bGH-treated cows, it represents a tiny fraction of the IGF-1 we all produce each day. IGF-1 promotes the natural growth and repair of major tissues, organs and bones. Bauman reports that we would have to drink 95 quarts of milk to equal the IGF-1 we make daily in our saliva and other digestive tract secretions.

There seems to be some confusion regarding hormones, which are naturally present in many foods of both plant and animal origin. Regarding insulin-like growth factor, or IGF-1, studies show that many factors can influence circulating blood levels of IGF-1 including age, sex, smoking, zinc intake, red meat and fish consumption, alcohol intake, and intake of dietary fats and oils as well as weight, lack of exercise, and diets too high in saturated fat, refined carbohydrates or total calories. What’s more, ACS and the FDA state there’s no conclusive evidence of any link between IGF-1 and cancer.

Secondly, organic milk must come from cows not treated with antibiotics. If a cow from an organic herd is treated with antibiotics, it is not returned to the herd for a period of 12 months. In conventional herds, cows are separated from production until tests indicate antibiotics have cleared its system. Tanks of all types of milk are routinely tested to ensure they are free of antibiotics. Either way, no milk containing antibiotics is allowed into the food supply.

Third, organic cows’ feed must be grown without pesticides. Whether organically or conventionally fed, the most recent FDA data available indicate that all of the milk tested was found to be completely free from pesticide residue. In fact, according to the American Cancer Society, the term “organic” is popularly used to designate plant foods grown without pesticides and genetic modifications. At present, no research exists to demonstrate whether such foods are more effective in reducing cancer risk than are similar foods produced by other farming methods. Additionally, over the past 10 years, milk and milk products consistently tested far below established tolerance levels and consistently were lowest compared to other agricultural products.

The final requirement for organic milk requires “access to pasture.” Consumers often assume that cows graze in fields most of the year. However, the current standard does not state a specific length of pasture time. A cow can graze in pasture only a limited time for the milk to qualify as “organic.”

The bottom line from a health and nutrition perspective is that the majority of Americans are not meeting their calcium needs and incidents of fractures and osteoporosis are increasing. In fact, 90 percent of girls and 70 percent of boys in our country do not receive adequate calcium intake. Knowing that milk and dairy foods contribute approximately 75 percent of the calcium in the American diet, both government and medical organizations confirm the importance of encouraging patients to include dairy foods in their diet no matter the source. The personal choice of which type they purchase whether organic, conventional, low-fat, lactose-free or flavored dairy foods should be solely based on preference and economic feasibility to allow inclusion of a wide variety of naturally nutrient-rich foods in the diet from all of the basic food groups. Our patients may only need education that they are free to make their own choice as conventionally produced and organic milk are both equally pure, safe and nutritious.