David Bloomberg
                                   P.O. Box 20302
                                   Springfield, IL 62708

August 16, 1994

Letters to the Editor
Illinois Times
P.O. Box 3524
Springfield, IL 62708
To the Editor:


     I read the allegations about Bovine Growth Hormone
(BGH) made by Maria Mootry in her letter printed August 11,
and find it necessary to correct some errors in her
statements.
     The major errors are in her claim that "use of rBGH is
known to generate pus in milk and to increase the need for
antibiotics in cows."  A search of the relevant studies
shows that the first claim is simply false, and the second
may be technically true, but is stated in such a way as to
use it more as a scare tactic than as useful information.
     On August 8, the Wall Street Journal published an
article about this very topic.  According to that article,
"the claim about pus and bacteria turns out to be a false
alarm."  Later in the article, the author notes that more
than a dozen "large-scale studies ... have compared the
number of udder infections in [BGH]-treated cows with those
in a control set and found no increase in infections in
treated cows."
     If any cow does become infected, whether it is being
treated with BGH or not, it must be removed from milk
production.  Milk is tested for antibiotics at least three
times before it reaches the consumer.  The FDA put together
an advisory panel before making its decision about allowing
BGH, and that committee investigated all aspects of the use
of BGH before coming to its conclusion.  That conclusion is
supported by the American Medical Association (AMA), the
National Institutes of Health's technology assessment panel,
the Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health
Organization, and a panel of 40 specialists from the White
House and seven federal agencies. In particular, a news
release from the AMA states, "After prolonged analysis of
[BGH], the American Medical Association's Council on
Scientific Affairs found [BGH]-supplemented milk to be
completely safe and nutritionally comparable to cows milk
currently on grocery store shelves."
     Alleging "pus in milk" is a sure way to scare people,
but without the facts to back it up, that's all it is -- a
scare tactic.  Claims like this need to be analyzed
objectively, not repeated without verification.


                              David Bloomberg, Chairman
                              Rational Examination
                              Association of Lincoln Land