By no means am I denouncing critics of the consumption of milk. Well, maybe I am. Rebecca Howard’s letter to the editor on Friday was definitely biased, almost misleading, regarding the facts about milk.

First, although humans are the only organisms to consume milk post-infancy, it’s not as if humans continue to drink human milk as we get older. The nutritional content of human milk varies, containing 1.8-8.9 percent fat according to a 1999 study by Robert Jensen. However, the USDA regulates cow’s milk, widely marketed in the U.S., as skim, low fat (like 1 percent or 2 percent milk fat), and whole milk. Whole milk contains at least 3.25 percent milk fat, making skim or low fat milk a much healthier choice, but in moderation even whole milk is reasonable to drink.

Yes, rBST (recombinant bovine somatotropin, also known as rBGH) has been shown to increase IGF-1 (the growth hormone mentioned as a cancer-causing agent). However, the content of IGF-1 in milk is minimal, with no effect on health.

Besides, Publix, for example, sells milk labeled with “from cows not treated with rBST.”

I personally love milk and have been drinking it for years without any adverse side effects such as lactose intolerance, which, by the way, can be described as a genetic trait, affecting about 15 percent of Americans. Incidence increases with age and is not caused by consumption of milk.

Why have we continued to consume milk? I drink milk because it is delicious as a side to cookies, poured over breakfast cereal or by itself, not because I think it is the only way to obtain vitamin A/D or calcium. I also take a multivitamin.

Sunflower seeds and turnip greens are healthy, delicious foods, but there’s nothing wrong with an occasional glass of milk, as long as it’s part of a balanced diet.

Scotty DePriest is a senior majoring in biology.