Pediatrics, World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, EEC Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products, and the Journal of the American Medical Association. The chair of the board, Dr. Dale E. Baumann, concluded in his report: "There are areas of biology in which knowledgeable experts disagree, but safety of foods from BST-treated animals is not one of them." The studies showed unanimously that "composition and nutritional value of milk from BST-treated cows is essentially the same as that of milk from untreated cows."

By 1996, some 15 countries worldwide had licensed the use of BST. The European Union placed a moratorium on its use until the year 2000 and banned the import of milk from BST-treated cows, but cited the oversupply of milk as the reason, rather than any concerns about safety. Canada has still not approved use of the hormone, pending reviews of its impact on the dairy industry, among other considerations.

In the absence of any clear evidence of harm to health, and with the growing acceptance of the drug in more countries, opponents of BST shifted the battle to the question of labeling milk sold in stores. The issue became one of choice. Those who still doubted official reassurances about safety should at least have the information to let them choose whether or not to buy milk from BST-treated cows. Countering this argument, the Food and Nutrition Science Alliance (representing the American Institute of Nutrition, American Society for Clinical Nutrition, Institute of Food Technologies, and American Dietetic Association) responded that, since milk from BST-treated cows is not different from other milk and poses no demonstrated health risks, labels on