http://www.mercola.com/2006/oct/26/more-confusing-deceptive-milk-marketing.htm

More Confusing, Deceptive Milk Marketing
An increasing number of dairy companies, hoping to cash in on the popularity
of natural foods, are selling milk that is not organic, but is free of the
genetically engineered growth hormone rBST, also called Posilac.
The hormone-free milk costs more than regular milk, but less than organic
milk, which requires greater expense and special feeds for the cows.

rBST increases the amount of milk cows produce, but it can result in cows
being treated with extra antibiotics due to udder inflammation, and can
produce milk with higher amounts of a different hormone, insulin-like growth
factor 1, which has been linked to cancer. Many buy organic milk solely to
avoid the hormone.

However, as a result of a lawsuit by Monsanto, the manufacturer of Posilac,
the FDA mandates that hormone-free milk carry a label stating that no
difference has been found between milk from treated cows and milk from
untreated cows.

  New York Times October 7, 2006

     The Ledger October 7, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Dr. Mercola's Comment:

  Interesting how competition for shelf space at your neighborhood grocery
store is changing how dairy producers make and market milk, even though the
end results still aren't fit to drink.

           Posilac may be quite hazardous to your health, and,
incidentally, could also account for some of the rise in the births of
fraternal twins in America.

           Of course, although hormone-free milk has to carry a disclaimer,
cartons of regular, average milk made with these unnatural hormones carry no
labels warning you that they contain substances that will increase your risk
of cancer.

           All this jockeying for shelf space obscures the real fact,
however, that no conventionally produced pasteurized milk -- no matter how
many chemicals dairy producers remove -- is ideal for you at all, which may
explain one of the reasons why raw milk consumption is growing.

           Pasteurization destroys part of the vitamin C contained in raw
milk and encourages the growth of harmful bacteria. Pasteurization also
destroys 20 percent of the iodine present in raw milk, causes constipation
and generally takes the most vital qualities away from the milk.

           But pasteurization's worst offense is that it makes the major
part of the calcium contained in raw milk insoluble. This can leads to
rickets, bad teeth and nervous troubles.

           So don't waste your money on "hormone-free" or even "organic"
milk anymore.

           There are far better ways to nourish yourself and your family.
Redirect your energy to find the real deal raw milk sources. Ideally, you
can find a local farmer who will be willing to sell this to you. If you find
one you will want to encourage him to consider restricting grains from the
cow's feed to improve the quality of the milk.

           If you are unable to find a local dairy farmer who will
cooperate with you please try this link: http://www.realmilk.com/where.html.

           If you are a bit skeptical about using raw dairy products please
read the review I wrote awhile back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZYA2zFsCK8

   Dr. Mercola's Comment:

  This is another dramatic example of how powerfully some corporations
control the media. You have heard me rant and rave about the drug companies,
but they are the fairy godmother compared to Monsanto.

           I simply don't know of any organization on the planet with more
sinister plans to destroy the health of your future. They are the central
force behind genetically modified foods and have conspired to literally own
all future food by unconstitutionally patenting every seed they can get
their hands on.

           I posted a report two years ago that Monsanto was slowing down
sales of its bovine growth hormone (BGH), Posilac, which is put in much of
the commercial milk sold in the United States.

           That seems to have been a temporary measure for publicity, as
Monsanto recently announced plans to start producing the product themselves
at a plant in Augusta, GA, instead of licensing another company to do it,
and they currently sell more than 33 million doses a year.

           There could be no stronger proof than this story that the
corporations do not care about your health, but only their profits, and that
their paid stooges in the media, the sciences, and the government are only
too happy to say whatever they are being given money to say. In the
instances where people try to take a stand, like the reporters in this case,
they are silenced by their bosses.

           There's a reason that the FDA, largely financed by their
corporate "partners" these days, declared BGH safe for humans after only a
brief study on a few rats. The Canadian equivalent of the FDA came to vastly
different conclusions about BGH.

           These factors, more than anything else, are the reason the
reports you hear about what is healthy and what is not are fatally skewed.

           On the brighter side, however, there's been a strong push away
from hormone-infested milk and toward raw milk. I do not recommend drinking
pasteurized milk, however, even if it doesn't contain hormones, because
pasteurization destroys enzymes, diminishes vitamin content, denatures
fragile milk proteins, destroys vitamin B12, and vitamin B6, kills
beneficial bacteria, promotes pathogens and is associated with allergies,
increased tooth decay, colic in infants, growth problems in children,
osteoporosis, arthritis, heart disease and cancer.

           Raw milk, on the other hand, is one of the finest natural
sources of calcium available. To find a raw milk source near you, visit the
Real Milk Web site.

           By the way, the video in the story above is from The
Corporation. If you want to have a great video for your library I would
recommend picking up a copy. I bought mine on Amazon.

           http://www.mercola.com/2000/nov/12/conflicts_of_interest.htm

           http://www.mercola.com/2003/apr/2/drug_companies.htm

           http://www.mercola.com/2003/jun/14/conflict_interest.htm

           http://www.mercola.com/2003/may/17/drug_companies.htm

              Drug Companies Engage in Illegal Sales Practices: U.S. Issues
Warning

                 The government warned drug companies in a compliance guide
for the drug industry that many of the techniques they use to sell their
drugs risk violating federal fraud and abuse laws.

                 The guide tells drug manufacturers that they must not
offer any financial incentives to doctors, hospitals, insurers or
pharmacists to encourage or reward the prescribing of particular drugs, as
these types of incentives have a high potential for fraud and abuse.

                 Additionally, federal officials oppose the practice of
some drug companies of offering gifts and entertainment to doctors.

                 A federal law, known as the antikickback statute,
prohibits such payments under Medicare or Medicaid, which combined spend
more than $30 billion a year on prescription drugs. However, the practice
remains a part of other industries.

                 Marketing practices that increase federal costs, interfere
with clinical decisions and lead to the overuse or misuse of drugs were of
particular concern, according to the guide.

                 Drug companies did not agree with many of the provisions
of the compliance guide, which also states that that drug companies could
face prosecution for making payments to health plans or benefit managers,
the companies that manage drug benefits, to encourage the use of their
drugs.

                 Many health plans and benefit managers compose lists of
recommended drugs known as formularies, and sales of drugs on such lists
often increase rapidly. Some drug manufacturers therefore offer payments to
the people who make up the lists, a practice which may be unlawful.

                 Additionally, the guide warns drug companies that their
research and education grants must be separate from their marketing.

                 For example, if a drug company has any influence over the
content of a professional education program or the choice of speakers,
"there is a risk that the program may be used for inappropriate marketing
purposes," according to the guide.

                 Another practice condemned by the guide is when drug
companies pay doctors to listen to their sales pitches. This practice is
also susceptible to fraud and abuse.

                 Moreover, according to the guide drug manufacturers that
give their sales agents excessive bonuses and expense accounts may be
intentionally motivating their sales employees to use entertainment or other
rewards to promote drug sales.

                 NY Times April 28, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------

                 Dr. Mercola's Comment

                 These are long-needed restrictions on the shenanigans that
the drug companies have been pulling off for some time now.

                 Why is it that other industries are far more tightly
regulated with respect to conflict of interest than the drug companies? Do
you even think for half a moment that insurance companies, banks or
brokerage firms would be able to get away with a fraction of what the drug
companies have been getting away with over the years?

                 Drugs are big business. Next to software, they have the
highest profit margins of any industry in the United States. There have been
many hundreds of billions of dollars available to grease the legislative
backlash that has hit the financial community.

                 However, it really does seem that the tide is starting to
turn now, and we are headed in the direction of tighter restrictions on what
the drug companies can get away with.

                 When I was part of the drug model I was a part of their
research scams. They would solicit primary care physicians to participate in
their clinical trials, but this research was a thinly disguised ploy to
bribe doctors to use their drugs.

                 I was involved as a primary care "researcher," and in the
late 80s was paid $100 per patient that I enrolled to try Claritin
(loradatine) before it was released on the market. It was an alternative to
the then popular Seldane, which was removed from the market after its drug
interaction side effects were responsible for killing large numbers of
people.

                 If this same "research" were done today it would be caught
as the marketing scam that it was and it would not be allowed.

                 This seems to be a giant step in the right direction.

                 Also, as I said last year:

                 Drug companies are spending about $15 billion a year on
physician marketing.

                 Most physicians have no clue that the drug companies are
spending (on average) $10,000 to influence each of their behaviors. They, of
course, do not receive a check, but the perks are quite significant.

                 They also don't realize that they actually lose that much
income and more if they factor in the time they lose by sitting with the
drug company reps and going to their "free" meals and lectures. They also
don't realize what a fiduciary responsibility is, that they need to
carefully analyze the costs involved in recommending expensive drugs.

                 Clearly drugs are sometimes appropriate and can save a
person's life. But most of the time they are unnecessary, cause harm and
cause the patient to divert much of their hard-earned income to the drug
companies, which further perpetuates this indirect physician subsidy.

                 One thing these drug companies are not is stupid. There is
no way they would spend $15 billion a year to do this type of marketing
unless they received a significant return on their investment.

                 Did I say return on investment?

                 Yes, I did.

                 The fact of the matter is that the United States alone is
spending over $1 trillion for drugs.

                 Folks, that is one thousand billion dollars.

                 The late Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois was fond of
talking about Defense Department spending by saying, "A billion dollars here
and a billion dollars there, and before you know it you are talking about
real money."

                 You'd better believe that there is plenty of profit in
that trillion dollars.