BST fits the prescription since it allows for more output, milk in this case, per input of feed. While opponents agree that BST increases milk production by between 10 and 15 percent, they bring up the point that the problem in the dairy industry is an overproduction of milk. With U.S. taxpayers paying a subsidy to dairy farmers to buy surplus milk to prevent the price of milk from plummeting, why is BST even necessary? Proponents counter that since supply is not really a problem, farmers would use BST to improve productivity rather than increase total amount of milk-producing the same volume of milk from fewer cows.
As with other food biotechnology products, proponents claim that the use of BST will benefit the environment. Reducing the amount of feed required to produce milk will reduce the need for fertilizer and other inputs associated with growing, harvesting, processing, and storing animal feed. Increases in productive efficiency also reduce the production of animal waste.
Labeling of milk from BST-treated cows is another hotly contested issue. Those who think it shouldn't be labeled point to FDA claims that there is no difference in milk fromBST and non-BST treated cows. Retailers may label milk products as coming from cows that were not treated with BST, but since there is no difference between BST milk and non-BST milk, and since all milk has some BST, FDA has ruled that labeling milk BST-free would be false labeling. Those who believe milk from BST-treated cows poses a risk want labeling so they can avoid feeding milk from BST-treated cows to their families.
