I was astounded at the inaccuracies contained in the 10/13/08 article by Karen Springen “Best Organics for the Buck”. Citing no less a scientific authority than Don Imus’ wife and other anti-farm activists, the article is replete with absurdities. The article justifies encouraging consumers to buy organic milk with the ridiculous and misleading claim that “there are so many hormones and antibiotics [in many brands of conventional milk]”.

The facts are clear and not subject to emotional musings. First, regarding hormones, lacteal secretions (milk) from all mammals—whether from a cow, a goat, a dolphin, a zebra, or from a human mother’s breast—contains hormones that are necessary for good health. All milk, regardless of whether the milk is produced organically or conventionally, contains hormones. All milk. That’s one of the reasons milk is so good for you.

With regard to the claim that any milk sold in the U.S. would have antibiotics, again we must deal with the facts. The only way that any antibiotic, which has been used to humanely treat an animal’s infection, can find its way into the food supply is if a criminal purposefully adulterates the product. Milk produced in our country is doubtless the most tested food product in America. Our milk is tested at the farm when it is picked up, and at the milk plant when it is received, and again throughout the process of bottling or manufacturing into cheese, butter, ice cream or any of the other products using milk. If any traces of antibiotics or any other adulterant are found in our milk supply, the product is destroyed.

All of this information, as well as data rebutting the other gross inaccuracies in the article, could have been easily discovered through a casual internet search, a phone call, or by routine fact checking.

Mr. Editor, please do your job.

Michael L. H. Marsh, CPA

Chief Executive Officer

Western United Dairymen

I was appalled to see "environmental activist" Deidre Imus' statement that "there are so many hormones and antibiotics (in many brands of conventional milk)" presented as fact in this article. Misleading and inaccurate statements such as this, in a publication such as Newsweek, do a great disservice to consumers faced with feeding their families in increasingly difficult economic times.  All milk, whether conventionally or organically produced, is pesticide and antibiotic-free, and is a healthy and nutritious food. A study published in July in the prestigious Journal of the American Dietetic Association (JADA) which tested conventionally produced milk, rBST-free milk and organically produced milk over a three week period on samples of milk from the 48 contiguous states concluded that THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MILK LABELED rBST FREE OR ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL MILK IS THE PRICE - with milk labeled organic or rBST free selling from $1 to $4 per gallon higher.  Consumers concerned with providing their families with the safest and healthiest foods should not be subjected to the fear mongering often used to promote such products and misled to think they must pay extra for a dietary staple such as milk in a national publication such as yours.

Consumers are facing tighter budgets and tough decisions in the grocery store. Newsweek's choice to print a biased, inaccurate quote from a known advocate only adds to confusion in the dairy aisle. All milk is natural and healthy. All milk is antibiotic and pesticide free.

What organic means is that farms must meet certain requirements, including not treating their cows with antibiotics when they get sick. Traditional farms do use antibiotics to treat sick cows, and this milk is dumped. Every tanker load of milk that leaves the farm is tested, and the farmer faces severe penalties if the milk doesn't meet set quality standards.

Traditional farms typically have higher milk production, which according to a study just released by Cornell University, is more environmentally sustainable, and reduces the carbon footprint of farms. They say when cows are more efficient at converting their feed to milk, this produces less waste. Some worry that higher production is bad for the cow, but it's just like new moms, unless you're healthy and eating a proper diet, you can't produce more milk. And, just like nursing moms, being milked more often feels better.

rbST is used to help cows extend the peak of a their natural lactation. This protein hormone is identical to naturally occurring bST and no test can detect the difference. Levels of bST are not elevated in the milk by use of rbST and, just like the protein soy, this protein is easily digested by our stomachs. Extensive and worldwide studies of the safety of rbST led the FDA to conclude that milk from rbST-supplemented cows is safe. Regulatory agencies from over 30 other countries agree, including Canada and the European Union countries where rbST is not used because of political decisions. More than 20 of the most prestigious medical associations and scientific societies in the world, including National Institute of Health, American Medical Association, American Cancer Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the World Health Organization, have provided positive, independent assessments.

Milks labeled as organic or rbST-free are niche products where producers have chosen a particular management system. Composition does not differ among conventional milk, rbST-free milk, or organic milk. All milk provides a variety of minerals and nutrients. and not fact checking quotes used in a discussion about food is a disservice to your readers.