Unfortunately, with unnaturally increased milk production due to injections of this synthetic drug comes increased hazards to human health. There is also a significant ethical difference between products from those animals who were forced to suffer rBST injections and those who were spared this added cruelty. Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, Inc., recently notified FDA Commissioner, Dr. David Kessler, that there is an increased threat of breast cancer from consumption of tainted milk. Clearly, the inherent threats of increased IGF-1 levels warrant prohibition of rBST's use. Another difficulty stems from the increased incidence of mastitis, a painful infection of the cow's udder, among treated cows which leads to increased use of antibiotics.
Antibiotic residues threaten humans' ability to resist disease.
In other words if the number of mastitis cases due to increased lactations per cow is greater than the number of mastitis cases due to rBST, the FDA considers rBST acceptable. According to this logic, the number of raindrops which will fall on my head during a storm is negligible compared to the total number falling on the city. Hence, I shouldn't bother using an umbrella. The potential threats to human health clearly are drastic, although denied by both the government and the manufacturer. One need look no further than the official FDA warning label for the product to see the threat to animals.