Organic Milk: Who Benefits?

The organic food market has exploded. What at first seemed to appeal to a niche market, now appears on grocery store shelves everywhere. Consumers now have the option to buy organically grown fruits and vegetables, meat, frozen entrees, grains, beauty products, and dairy. It is so exciting to see that Americans can impact the agricultural industry by simply buying more of the products they want. What perhaps drives the organic market is the desire to "get back to nature." Consumers want a product that has a minimal impact on the environment during its production and that nourishes their bodies without synthetic chemicals or additives. The ideology behind organic is truly admirable.
As a consumer advocate, however, I prefer that the whole truth be spoken about organic food, particularly animal products. It is important to recognize what exactly the label "Certified Organic" means when you're at the grocery store choosing between the gallon of milk for $2.50 vs. $6.00. Does organic mean that the animals are more humanely treated? Does organic mean more nutritious? Does organic mean safer? In a word, no.
In a survey study published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association in 2008, retail milk samples from organic, conventional, and rbST-free (recombinant bovine somatotropin) milk were collected from 48 states. Researchers tested the milk for quality (bacterial and antibiotic counts), nutritional value (fat, protein), and hormones. Surprisingly, conventionally labeled milk had significantly less estradiol and progresterone than organic milk. With regards to insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), organic milk did have less than both conventional and rbST-free milk. Organic milk had a slightly higher protein content (about 0.1%) compared to the other milks. Finally, conventionally labeled milk had the lowest bacterial counts compared to the others (1).
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) oversees the labeling of food products as organic with the National Organic Program. This program assures consumers that they are getting what they are paying for, similar to a nutrition or ingredient label. The USDA provides a list of allowable and prohibited substances (available online at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5068682&acct=nopgeninfo); but to put it simply, organic foods cannot contain ingredients which have been made using synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, genetic engineering, growth hormones, irradiation, or antibiotics. I can agree that it is desirable to reduce or eliminate the use of these products in the food industry. However, I believe there is a time and a place for one--antibiotics.
Under the current standards, if an organically raised animal suffers from a bacterial infection, it cannot be treated with antibiotics. The usage of antibiotics would result in a permanent loss of organic status of the animal. Dairy cows frequently develop mastitis, a condition where their udders become inflamed due to bacteria entering their teat. Mastitis is undoubtedly a painful condition and results in reduced milk production and quality. Organic producers will commonly use alternative therapies such as vitamin supplements to treat mastitis, but currently there are no products approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that can be used for treatment of mastitis on organic dairy farms (2). Thus, animals may be left untreated when a simple round of antimicrobials would treat their condition, effectively reducing their pain and suffering. So, with regard to animal handling and welfare, an organic label does not guarantee humane treatment. In my opinion, antibiotics should not be an all or nothing commodity in the agricultural industry.
As consumers, we are trying to do the right thing with regard to the health of ourselves and our planet when we buy organic. Choosing organic helps reduce the amount of pesticides in our soil and water. It promotes biodiversity by using strategies such as crop rotation to improve the fertility of the soil instead of synthetic fertilizers. It is not a perfect solution, but unless consumers know that it's not perfect, they won't know to continue demanding better. Continually seek improvement and we will find it. So as to what to do the next time you're faced with the question of organic vs. conventional milk, take the time to find out more about the source. Buy local as often as possible and talk to them. Find out how they deal with bacterial infections in their dairy cows. They want to hear from you. After all, they are in the business of providing to you...they want to know what you think is important.

(1) Vicini, J., et al. "Survey of retail milk composition as affected by label claims regarding farm-management practices." J Am Diet Assoc, 108(7), 1198-203; 2008.

(2) Ruegg, P.L. "Management of mastitis on organic & conventional dairy farms." J Anim Sci, 1910. doi:10.2527/jas.2008-1217; 2008.

What should come first: the chicken or the egg?

Numerous definitions have been used for the term “welfare,” but most simply, welfare is “a state of complete mental and physical health, where the animal is in harmony with its environment”(1). To assess welfare, experts have used health, production, physiological, and behavioral-type indicators.
One livestock management practice that appears to raise welfare concerns is the housing of laying hens in so-called “battery cages.” It is estimated that 98% of all layer flocks in the U.S. are housed indoors and in cages. Currently, the United Egg Producers (UEP) suggests 48 square inches per bird, while the European Union (EU) requires 75 square inches per bird. Supporters argue that modern cage systems decrease disease and cannibalism, they are better for the environment because they reduce dust and require less land area, and they allow consumers to enjoy lower prices. Furthermore, the Scientific Advisory Committee for the UEP states that caged systems provide cleaner eggs and also keep the eggs safe from bacterial contamination. Caged housing provides protection of the hens from environmental extremes and predators, as well as facilitates optimal daily care and inspection of the birds (2). According to standard welfare assessments, it would appear that producers have taken into consideration health and production indicators.
However, supporters of cage free egg production argue that hens should be able to lie down, stretch their wings, and turn around, examples of basic ethological indicators of welfare; current housing requirements do not allow for this behavior. Furthermore, the inability to adequately groom and demonstrate “natural” behaviors increases stress in the birds. Animals under stress have been shown to have compromised immune systems which lead to an increased susceptibility to disease.
Non-caged systems would undoubtedly increase costs for the final egg product, as housing and labor requirements would rise. In addition, space requirements would exponentially increase. Some experts estimate that to meet the current U.S. egg needs with cage free hens, an area the size of Kansas would be required. In my opinion, there is no "perfect solution." To meet the requirements of American egg consumption, it seems to be necessary to require some degree of "condensed housing." I think most everyone would agree that the current standards of 48 square inches per bird is far too little. In fact, the UEP agrees too! In a recent assessment of the industry, the UEP consensus states that each hen should have 67 to 86 inches per bird. However, change takes time--the industry is allowing a 5-year phase-in period (2).
Californians have recently spoken up on the issue as well, passing Proposition 2 which will require that egg-laying hens have enough room to lie down, stand up, fully extend their wings, and turn around freely. We as Americans have the ability to vote everyday with the loudest voice of all--our dollar. If we demand eggs that have been lain by hens that are able to turn around, the industry will undoubtedly respond by investing in new housing structures. Like all markets, agriculture resonds to consumer demand. Basically, don't go buying those $0.99 eggs if the thought of strictly confined hens makes you cringe.


(1) Scientific Veterinary Committee of the European Commission. “Report on the welfare of layer hens.” 1996.
(2) United Egg Producers. “UEP Animal Husbandry Guidelines.” Available online at http://www.uepcertified.com/program/guidelines/categories/housing-space-feed-water; 2009.

Radicals on the left, radicals on the right

My first blog posting, how exciting! Here's how I see this going...as often as possible I'd like to keep my readers informed on my most recent experiences within the world of health and wellness. I am passionate about health, and I believe there are so many components to overall well-being. Through my blog, I'd like to explore these different components. I am fortunate to be exposed to new things everyday as I make my way through vet school. I have a unique perspective, having training in environmental health, veterinary medicine, and public health. I expect to discuss issues such as organic vs. conventional food, animal welfare and handling issues in life and at slaughter, complimentary and alternative medicine, antibiotics and hormone use in food products, and environmental sustainability. I realize it's a bit diverse, but that is my mission--dive into those areas where all aspects of health intersect to find out what contributes both to health and disease.

As with any issue, there are always people on opposite extremes. I expect the issues I raise to be no different. There are radicals to the left and radicals to the right--I drive in the middle of the road, listening and taking in the thought processes of both groups. Afterall, the solution is often somewhere right in the middle. I am open to hearing your thoughtful responses because we only grow in the face of adversity. Thanks for reading!