The study concluded that there were no differences in antibiotic levels in the milk samples. The purpose of the study stated, "the objective of this study was to compare these endpoints for conventional, rbST-free, and organic milk.," (Vicini, Etherton, & Etherton et al., p. 1199). By the time conclusions were drawn, the topic of rBST and organic milk, as stated in the research objectives, had been completely abandoned and replaced by conclusions regarding antibiotics, which are required to be zero for any milk, regardless of origin, that ends up on retail shelves.

The only studies that are provided to the public, and which are the basis of policy decisions, are highly suspect due to the financial interests between Monsanto and the research laboratory. The sampling techniques used, invalidate the conclusions drawn. It may also be noted that this study was conducted in response to the decision of several large retail chains to transition to rBST free milk in 2008 due to consumer demand (Kroger, 2008; the Daily Green, 2008).

Conclusions and Recommendations

An examination of studies concerning rBST and the effects on human beings was marked by only a handful of studies. The sampling methods and conditions under which these studies were conducted must be considered suspect. However, these studies appear to be the most widely advertised and cited in the mass media. The mass media and scientific community only considered studies that directly address rBST itself, but they do not consider the by-products of the metabolism of rBST in humans. There were many more studies conducted on the effects of rBST in cattle, than on humans. None could be located that consider the effects of rBST in human beings, unless one wishes to consider the unpublished report by Monsanto.

Use of rBST was approved for use in human beings without any valid short-term studies conducted that usually accompany FDA approval of pharmaceuticals that will find their way into the human body. The FDA has different approval methods for food additives and for drugs. A food additive does not have to go through phase I, II, and III testing...

The primary concern in this case, was for the safety of the cattle. The only response to this concern was an empirically unsound study, which did not even address the issue at hand. Even after the study conducted by Vicini and associates, one still cannot determine the rBST levels that can be found in retail supplies of milk.
It is my recommendation that valid, unbiased empirical research regarding the impact of rBST on humans needs to be conducted before any other programs can be implemented. The studies need to begin by addressing the issue from a human pharmaceutical, rather than from a food additive perspective. Studies need to focus on what happens to rBST in the human body. The most surprising finding of this research was the rBST made it into the human food supply by using the food additive, rather than the pharmaceutical rules of the FDA, although, it is considered to be a pharmaceutical for bovines. This of greatest concern in regards to the issue.