by Robin Winter, Archaeology Online

The world over, the term “sacred cow” has come to mean any stubborn loyalty to a long-standing institution which impedes natural progress. The term originates in India, where the cow is said to be literally worshiped, while thousands of humans suffer from undernourishment. The common, popular view of India in the West is that of an underdeveloped nation steeped in superstition. Overpopulated, overcrowded, undereducated, and bereft of most modern amenities, India is seen to be a backward nation in many respects by “progressive” Western civilization. “If only India would abandon her religious superstitions and kill and eat the cow!” Over several decades many attempts have been made by the “compassionate” West to alleviate unfortunate India’s burden of poor logic, and to replace her superstitions with rational thinking.

Much of the religious West finds common ground with the rationalists, with whom they otherwise are usually at odds, on the issue of India’s “sacred cow.” Indeed, worshiping God is one thing, but to worship the cow while at the same time dying of starvation is a theological outlook much in need of reevaluation. Man is said to have dominion over the animals, but it would appear that the Indians have it backwards.

Popular opinion is not always the most informed opinion; in fact, this is usually the case. The many attempts to wean India from the nipple of her outdated pastoral culture have all failed. After 200 years of foreign occupation by the British, and after many subsequent but less overt imperialistic attempts, we find that although India has changed, the sacred cow remains as sacred as ever. In all but two Indian states, cow slaughter is strictly prohibited. If legislation were passed today to change that ruling, there would be rioting all over India. In spite of considerable exposure to Western ideas, one late Indian statesman said, when asked what he thought of Western civilization, “I think it is a good idea. When will they begin?”

An unbiased look at perhaps the longest-standing culture of the world, its roots and philosophy, may help us to see things a little more as they are — even about our own way of life. Sometimes we have to stand back to get the full picture. It is a natural tendency to consider one’s own way the best, but such bull-headedness may cause us to miss seeing our own shortcomings. An honest look at the headlines of our home town newspaper may inspire us to question exactly what it is we are so eager to propound.

Perhaps the most appalling aspect of the Western technological influence on India is found in the country’s few “modern” cities. Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi, and other cities can be most frustrating to the average Westerner. Crude attempts at modernization can be worse than none at all. Although India’s technology lacks the polish and sophistication of the West, its employment in crude fashion nonetheless brings all of the adverse effects of a sophisticated form of the same amenities.

Real India is rural India. Village life accounts for the bulk of India’s population of 700 million, and best illustrates the nation’s ancient culture. The simplicity of India is often mistaken for ignorance, and her peacefulness mistaken for complacency. The serenity of Indian village life is overlooked or mislabeled by those who in the name of progress may really only be operating under the axiom of “misery loves company.” Perhaps the people of India live as they do for a good reason: much of what goes along with Western “progress”—the mental anguish which causes us to do the most bizarre things that make many cities living hells—is relatively absent in India’s rural lifestyle.

It is particularly difficult for Westerners to appreciate India’s worship of the cow. After all, we live in the land of the hamburger. The “American” restaurant abroad is McDonald’s. “Ole McDonald had a farm /Did it ever grow!” Western economists often contend that beef alone can solve India’s food problems and lay a foundation for a lucrative export trade. This has caused cow worship and cow protection to come under attack for centuries. Cow protection has been called a “lunatic obstacle” to sensible farm management.

India’s cow is called the zebu, and an investigation of the controversy surrounding her brings us to the heart of village life in India. The average landholder in India farms approximately one acre. This is nowhere near enough land to warrant the purchase of a tractor. Even if the size of the land plots were increased to make the purchase of machinery cost-effective, the unique weather, a five-season year including the monsoon, would quickly render the tractor useless. After the monsoons, the soil is too soft for planting and must be quickly and efficiently prepared before the soon-to-follow intense heat brings an end to the very short growing season. The loss of even one day will considerably affect the overall yield. The zebu bullocks are ideal in this connection for they can easily plow the soft earth without overly compacting the soil as would heavy machinery.

Farming in India is a family affair, and the labor-intensive approach to cultivation involves everyone. This helps to sustain the family unit, which is sometimes considered to be the wealth of a nation. The staples of the diet are grains: wheat and rice. Most of India is vegetarian. While the bull plows the field, helping to provide the grains, the cow supplies milk from which many dairy products are produced. Day to day, year after year, the cow and bull are the center of rural Indian life.

According to Frances Moore Lappe in her best-seller, Diet for a Small Planet, “For every sixteen pounds of grain and soy fed to beef cattle in the United States, we only get one pound back in meat on our plates. The other fifteen pounds are inaccessible to us, either used by the animal to produce energy or to make some part of its own body that we do not eat (like hair or bones), or excreted. Milk production is more efficient, with less than one pound of grain fed for every pint of milk produced. (This is partly because we don’t have to grow a new cow every time we milk one.)” If India, with its already strained resources, were to allocate so much more acreage for the production of beef, it would be disastrous. Advocates of modernization maintain that with the application of the latest farming techniques, the yield per acre would gradually increase, thus making it possible for beef to be introduced over a period of time. Such advocates contend that with the introduction of beef into the Indian diet, the population’s health would increase, thus furthering productivity. However, it is interesting to note that although India is far from being free of disease, its principal health problems are a result of urban overcrowding and inadequate sanitation and medical facilities. Whereas high blood pressure, heart disease, arthritis, and cancer constitute the greatest health threats in the West, the Indian people are practically free from these afflictions. So the “fact” that India’s health would increase with the introduction of beef into the diet is not likely to overcome the “superstition” of the people’s religious beliefs which prohibit them from eating meat.

The religious “superstitions” of India are based on the Vedas, which constitute the most voluminous body of literature in the world. The Vedas and their corollaries deal elaborately with theism, describing many gradations of the theistic idea. The idea that one should not eat meat, although central to Hindu philosophy, is only a secondary theme. To a large extent it amounts only to common sense and sensitivity. It is from this basis of sensitivity, an indicator of healthy consciousness, that higher spiritual principles can be appreciated. Actually, the Vedas agree with the West’s contention that man has dominion over the animals; however, the West’s way of dealing with its dependents is revolting to Indians. After all, we have dominion over our children and ofttimes elders as well, but would we be justified in slaughtering them for food? We become incensed if someone even abuses our dog!

The Vedas do not teach that the cow is superior to the human form of life and therefore worshipable. Rather, the she gives so much practical help to human society that she should be protected. Her assistance frees mankind from much of the struggle of life, thereby providing us with more time for spiritual pursuits. Although modern technology may be said to do the same, the fact is that it actually complicates man’s life more and more and distracts him from more simple living and high spiritual thinking. We may become so mechanistic that we can fool ourselves into believing that cows or pets have no feelings.

For India, the cow represents the sacred principle of motherhood. She symbolizes charity and generosity because of the way she distributes her milk, which is essential for the nourishment of the young.

India’s critics have pointed out that although Indian village life may be simple, it is a marginal existence; it is a life of little surplus. If a farmer’s cow turns barren, he has lost his only chance of replacing the work team. And if she goes dry, the family loses its milk and butter. However the situation is not as bad as the technologically advanced may think. In village life, people are more interdependent. Helping one’s neighbor is also considered sacred. Sharing is commonplace. All of the father’s male friends are affectionately referred to by the sons and daughters as “uncle”, while all of the village women are seen as mother. Often the responsibility of caring for and nursing the young is shared by several mothers.

Perhaps the heaviest criticism of the pastoral culture of India is directed at the insistence of the farmers on protecting even sick and aged cows. Westerners find this to be the height of absurdity. At least they could be killed and eaten or sold. But no. Animal hospitals or nursing homes called goshallas, provided by government agencies or wealthy individuals in search of piety, offer shelter for old and infirm cows. This is thought to be a luxury that India cannot really afford, as these “useless” cows are seen to be but competitors for the already limited croplands and precious foodstuffs. The fact is, however, that India actually spends a great deal less on their aging cattle than Americans spend on their cats and dogs. And India’s cattle population is six times that of the American pet population.

The Indian farmer sees his cattle like members of the family. Since the farmers depend on the cattle for their own livelihood, it makes perfect sense both economically and emotionally to see to their well-being. In between harvests, the cattle are bathed and spruced up much like the average American polishes his automobile. Twice during the year, special festivals are held in honor of the cows. These rituals are similar to the American idea of Thanksgiving. Although in principle the same, there is a basic difference in the details of how we treat the turkey and how the more “primitive” Indians treat their cows.

India cares for over 200 million zebus. This accounts for one-fifth of the world’s cattle population. Critics say that if India does not eat her cows, the cows will eat India. Exasperated critics feel that even the cow is underfed. However, in more recent years, India’s critics have come to agree that she is essential to India’s economy. Cattle are India’s greatest natural resource. They eat only grass –which grows everywhere–and generates more power than all of India’s generating plants. They also produce fuel, fertilizer, and nutrition in abundance. India runs on bullock power. Some 15 million bullock carts move approximately 15 billion tons of goods across the nation. Newer studies in energetics have shown that bullocks do two-thirds of the work on the average farm. Electricity and fossil fuels account for only 10%.. Bullocks not only pull heavy loads, but also grind the sugarcane and turn the linseed oil presses. Converting from bullocks to machinery would cost an estimated $30 billion plus maintenance and replacement costs.

The biggest energy contribution from cows and bulls is their dung. India’s cattle produce 800 million tons of manure every year. The Vedas explain that dung from cows is different from all other forms of excrement. Indian culture insists that if one comes in contact with the stool of any other animal, they must immediately take a bath. Even after passing stool oneself, bathing is necessary. But the cow’s dung, far from being contaminating, instead possesses antiseptic qualities. This has been verified by modern science. Not only is it free from bacteria, but it also does a good job of killing them. Believe it or not, it is every bit as good an antiseptic as Lysol or Mr. Clean.

Most of the dung is used for fertilizer at no cost to the farmer or to the world’s fossil fuel reserves. The remainder is used for fuel. It is odorless and burns without scorching, giving a slow, even heat. A housewife can count on leaving her pots unattended all day or return any time to a preheated griddle for short-order cooking. To replace dung with coal would cost India $1.5 billion per year.

Dung is also used for both heating and cooling. Packed on the outside walls of a house, in winter it keeps in the heat, and in summer produces a cooling effect. Also, unlike the stool of humans, it keeps flies away , and when burned, its smoke acts as a repellent for mosquitoes.

When technocrats were unable to come up with a workable alternative, they came up with a new argument for modernization. They suggested that the cattle culture be maintained, but that it should be done in a more efficient manner. Several ambitious programs were initiated using pedigree bulls and artificial insemination. But the new hybrids were not cheap nor were they able to keep up the pace with the zebus. The intense heat of India retired many of them well before old age. Although they produced more milk, this also created more problems, because there was no efficient system for distributing the surplus of milk throughout India’s widespread population.

India’s system of distribution is highly decentralized. Although the solution seemed simple, modernization again met its shortcomings. With bottling plants, pasteurization, and other sophisticated Western methods of distribution, it was thought that all of India could have fresh, pure milk. Behind the automats set up for the distribution of powdered milk, milk, and cream was the expectation that in time, people would begin to appreciate the abundant rewards bestowed by these new modern deities of technology, and worship of cows would gradually disappear. But in the end it was modernization that failed to prove its value.

Pasteurization proved to be a waste of time and money for Indians, who generally drink their milk hot, and thus boil it before drinking. With the absence of modern highways and the cost of milking machines and other necessities of factory dairy farming, it was seen to be impractical to impose the Western dairy system on India; the cost of refrigeration alone would make the price of milk too expensive for 95% of India’s population.

Eventually, after repeated attempts to modernize India’s approach to farming—and in particular its attitude toward its beloved zebus—it became clear that these technological upgrades were not very well thought out.. They were not to replace a system that had endured for thousands of years; a system not only economically wise, but one that was part of a spiritually rich heritage. On the contrary, it may well be time to export the spiritual heritage of India to the West, where technology continues to threaten the tangible progress of humanity in its search for the deeper meaning of life.

By Kate Wilson, The New York Times

A few months after Lloyd reported on the Swiss government’s conclusion that plants have rights, the Ecuadorian population went one step further and voted to change their constitution to proclaim that nature has “the right to the maintenance and regeneration of its vital cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes.”

The New York Times felt that the Ecuadorian concept of plants’ rights was significant enough to include it in their 8th Annual Year in Ideas list. Enquire further to find out what this could mean for conservation efforts in the South American nation.

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.10.4

TRANSLATION

During the reign of Mahārāja Yudhisthira, the clouds showered all the water that people needed, and the earth produced all the necessities of man in profusion. Due to its fatty milk bag and cheerful attitude, the cow used to moisten the grazing ground with milk.

PURPORT

The basic principle of economic development is centered on land and cows. The necessities of human society are food grains, fruits, milk, minerals, clothing, wood, etc. One requires all these items to fulfill the material needs of the body. Certainly one does not require flesh and fish or iron tools and machinery. During the regime of Mahārāja Yudhisthira, all over the world there were regulated rainfalls. Rainfalls are not in the control of the human being. The heavenly King Indradeva is the controller of rains, and he is the servant of the Lord. When the Lord is obeyed by the king and the people under the king’s administration, there are regulated rains from the horizon, and these rains are the causes of all varieties of production on the land. Not only do regulated rains help ample production of grains and fruits, but when they combine with astronomical influences there is ample production of valuable stones and pearls. Grains and vegetables can sumptuously feed a man and animals, and a fatty cow delivers enough milk to supply a man sumptuously with vigor and vitality. If there is enough milk, enough grains, enough fruit, enough cotton, enough silk and enough jewels, then why do the people need cinemas, houses of prostitution, slaughterhouses, etc.? What is the need of an artificial luxurious life of cinema, cars, radio, flesh and hotels? Has this civilization produced anything but quarreling individually and nationally? Has this civilization enhanced the cause of equality and fraternity by sending thousands of men into a hellish factory and the war fields at the whims of a particular man?

It is said here that the cows used to moisten the pasturing land with milk because their milk bags were fatty and the animals were joyful. Do they not require, therefore, proper protection for a joyful life by being fed with a sufficient quantity of grass in the field? Why should men kill cows for their selfish purposes? Why should man not be satisfied with grains, fruits and milk, which, combined together, can produce hundreds and thousands of palatable dishes. Why are there slaughterhouses all over the world to kill innocent animals? Mahārāja Parīksit, grandson of Mahārāja Yudhisthira, while touring his vast kingdom, saw a black man attempting to kill a cow. The King at once arrested the butcher and chastised him sufficiently. Should not a king or executive head protect the lives of the poor animals who are unable to defend themselves? Is this humanity? Are not the animals of a country citizens also? Then why are they allowed to be butchered in organized slaughterhouses? Are these the signs of equality, fraternity and nonviolence?

Therefore, in contrast with the modern, advanced, civilized form of government, an autocracy like Mahārāja Yudhisthira’s is by far superior to a so-called democracy in which animals are killed and a man less than an animal is allowed to cast votes for another less-than-animal man.

We are all creatures of material nature. In the Bhagavad-gītā it is said that the Lord Himself is the seed-giving father and material nature is the mother of all living beings in all shapes. Thus mother material nature has enough foodstuff both for animals and for men, by the grace of the Father Almighty, Śrī Krsna. The human being is the elder brother of all other living beings. He is endowed with intelligence more powerful than animals for realizing the course of nature and the indications of the Almighty Father. Human civilizations should depend on the production of material nature without artificially attempting economic development to turn the world into a chaos of artificial greed and power only for the purpose of artificial luxuries and sense gratification. This is but the life of dogs and hogs.

The forests of India are a critical resource for the subsistence of rural peoples throughout the country, but especially in hill and mountain areas, both because of their direct provision of food, fuel and fodder and because of their role in stabilising soil and water resources. As these forests have been increasingly felled for commerce and industry, Indian villagers have sought to protect their livelihoods through the Gandhian method of satyagraha non-violent resistence. In the 1970s and 1980s this resistance to the destruction of forests spread throughout India and became organised and known as the Chipko Movement.

The first Chipko action took place spontaneously in April 1973 and over the next five years spread to many districts of the Himalaya in Uttar Pradesh. The name of the movement comes from a word meaning ‘embrace’: the villagers hug the trees, saving them by interposing their bodies between them and the contractors’ axes. The Chipko protests in Uttar Pradesh achieved a major victory in 1980 with a 15-year ban on green felling in the Himalayan forests of that state by order of India’s then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi. Since then the movement has spread to Himachal Pradesh in the North, Kamataka in the South, Rajasthan in the West, Bihar in the East and to the Vindhyas in Central India. In addition to the 15-year ban in Uttar Pradesh, the movement has stopped clear felling in the Western Ghats and the Vindhyas and generated pressure for a natural resource policy which is more sensitive to people’s needs and ecological requirements.

The Chipko Movement is the result of hundreds of decentralised and locally autonomous initiatives. Its leaders and activists are primarily village women, acting to save their means of subsistence and their communities. Men are involved too, however, and some of these have given wider leadership to the movement. Prominent Chipko figures include: Sunderlal Bahuguna, a Gandhian activist and philosopher, whose appeal to Mrs. Gandhi results in the green-felling ban and whose 5,000 kilometre trans-Himalaya footmarch in 1981-83 was crucial in spreading the Chipko message. Bahuguna coined the Chipko slogan: ‘ecology is permanent economy’.

Chandi Prasad Bhatt, one of the earliest Chipko activists, who fostered locally-based industries based on the conservation and sustainable use of forest wealth for local benefit.

Dhoom Singh Negi, who, with Bachni Devi and many village women, first saved trees by hugging them in the ‘Chipko embrace’. They coined the slogan: ‘What do the forests bear? soil, water and pure air’.

Ghanasyam Raturi, the Chipko poet, whose songs echo throughout the Himalaya of Uttar Pradesh.

Indu Tikekar, a doctor of philosophy, whose spiritual discourses throughout India on the ancient Sanskrit scriptures and on comparative religion have stressed the unity and oneness of life and put the Chipko Movement in this context.

A feature published by the United Nations Environment Programme reported the Chipko Movement thus: ‘In effect the Chipko people are working a socio-economic revolution by winning control of their forest resources from the hands of a distant bureaucracy which is concerned with selling the forest for making urban-oriented products.’

“The solution of present-day problems lie in the re-establishment of a harmonious relationship between man and nature. To keep this relationship permanent we will have to digest the definition of real development: development is synonymous with culture. When we sublimate nature in a way that we achieve peace, happiness, prosperity and, ultimately, fulfilment along with satisfying our basic needs, we march towards culture.” Sunderlal Bahuguna

By Brigid Schulte, Washington Post

The idea seemed too crazy to Rod Simmons, a measured, careful field botanist. Naturalists in Arlington County couldn’t find any acorns. None. No hickory nuts, either. Then he went out to look for himself. He came up with nothing. Nothing crunched underfoot. Nothing hit him on the head.

Article from the Working Villages International website.

There are few places on Earth like the Ruzizi Valley. The average temperature remains around 80 degrees Fahrenheit (27 C) year round. There is plentiful water, rich volcanic soil and four growing seasons. Twenty years ago the valley was covered with fertile farms and pastures and healthy herds of cows. Ten years of brutal war destroyed all this.

Today, the people of the Ruzizi Valley, in partnership with Working Villages International (WVI) have begun implementing an innovative yet practical economic model of sustainable village development just outside the town of Luvungi. WVI is building from scratch a model village which will have full employment, and private ownership of small farms and businesses. It is a village designed for maximum harmony with the environment. This project is a practical demonstration that it’s possible to profoundly increase living standards in rural Africa by relying on local resources and skills, enhanced by modern appropriate technology.
It is astounding to see what has happened since our Ruzizi Valley project kicked off in spring 2006. The once-abandoned land is now full of productive activity and lush crops. Our enthusiastic staff, led by our expert agronomist and project manager, Fiston Malago, have cultivated over a hundred acres of land, growing over 90 different varieties of organic crops.

We renovated our headquarters and built a gazebo and kitchen using local materials and local expertise. In preparation for the Ruzizi Valley’s short dry season, the workers completed an ambitious irrigation network to supply water for one hundred acres of thirsty crops. The harvests have been flourishing, and our goal of food self-sufficiency is nearly complete. That will allow WVI to fully feed its workers and their families and still have a large surplus left over to help alleviate food shortages within the Valley. It will also allow for an expansion in the number of workers we can employ.

The fertile soil of Ruzizi has helped make the organic harvests of WVI spectacular: corn 14 feet high, sunflowers three times the size of a man’s head, 12 pound cabbages, sweet and delicious melons, and a wide variety of other delicious vegetables and fruits. Over a dozen varieties of colorful flowers beautify the gardens and inspire the workers.

All this food and the construction of the support buildings will help the Ruzizi Project push forward to its next stage – the construction of the houses and workshops and public buildings that will make up the new village. At this point foundations have been laid for twelve houses, and for three of these, the walls have already been built.

 In addition we will improve the productivity of the village by introducing draft animal power in the form of oxen. Our new teamsters (men and women) are already showing their expertise in building a solid relationship of loyalty with the oxen, so that they can guide them as they wish, using only voice commands. Once the animals are sufficiently grown to pull equipment, this careful training will make a huge difference, as they are very willing and capable workers.

At $12 dollars a gallon, the price of gasoline is too high to be the basis of village economy, so oxen will have an important role to play in increasing productivity. In plowing, transport and construction, oxen will reduce the burden of labor and increase its value, thus increasing the wealth and well-being og the community. 

After ten years of devastating war, peace is returning to this little part of Congo. The villagers of Luvungi are hopeful that when they have a new village and a flourishing economy, the tragedy which claimed the lives of 5 million of their countrymen will never again come to their beautiful valley.

On the Banks of the Ganga: When Wastewater Meets a Sacred River by Kelly D. Alley

Introduction: Field Method and Layers of Data

“I started this project about nine years ago while studying tourism and public culture in north India.  I remember the day that the original idea for this study emerged from a dialogue I overheard while touring the north Indian city of Benaras with several American and German tourists.  While boating along the river Ganga and watching Hindu pilgrims bathe in this sacred river, these tourists discussed the state of the river, expressing horror that the native population did not recognize its polluted nature.  One said, “I wouldn’t put my big toe in this river, it is so polluted!”  As an observer, I began to think about this Western tourist interpretation in the light of the Hindu practice of bathing in sacred rivers, and about how this view of pollution is juxtaposed against a view of the sacred.  Other questions emerged.  Are these differences in thinking and approach mirrored within and outside of India in other ways?  How should an investigation of these two perspectives, the one in relation to the other, proceed?  What shall the methodology be?”

Preview the book On the Banks of the Ganga here.

Article posted on the Food For Life Global website.

Director of Food for Life Global, Priyavrata das (Paul Turner), was interviewed on Healthy Life Radio, touted as the “all positive talk radio” by celebrity vegan Victoria Moran. The 60-minute interview covered such topics as global warming, the economic crisis and the negative karma of eating meat. Paul also talked about the charities solution to world hunger and his experience in war zones during food relief operations.

The full interview can be downloaded from Healthylife.net.

by Allison Aubrey, National Public Radio

When consumers pay top dollar for organic milk, they know they’re getting dairy that’s free of synthetic growth hormones, pesticides and antibiotics.

Now there’s a move to ensure cows are feeding on plenty of fresh grass if producers want to label the milk as organic.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has issued draft rules that would require cows to be on pasture during the entire grazing season. The regulation would also require that cows on organic dairy farms get a minimum of 30 percent of their diet from grazing.

The proposals are intended to close a loophole that has allowed some huge feedlots, with thousands of cows, to sell their milk as organic even though their cows rarely graze on fresh grass.

It’s not a perfect proposal, according to the organic watchdog group The Cornucopia Institute. “What we need to do is level the playing field” says Cornucopia’s Mark Kastel.

100 Percent Grass-Fed

Natural by Nature is an organic co-op in Pennsylvania that sells milk produced by dairy farmers who have switched to grass-feeding operations. Mennonite farmer Roman Stoltzfoos of Kinzers, Pa., is among the co-op’s producers. Stoltzfoos says he supports the USDA’s proposed rule, with some modifications.

“We need to know that if someone is certified organic — that this means the same thing to everyone.” says Stoltzfoos.

During a tour of his dairy operation, Stoltzfoos walks with his herd of about 100 cows as they make their way from a patch of pasture to a milking barn. “They walk at least a mile and a half a day on average,” he says. In comparison, some dairy cows kept on conventional farms are confined on concrete feedlots.

As they graze, Stoltzfoos’ cows eat a smorgasbord of different types of grasses and fresh clover. Pointing to one cow, Stoltzfoos says the animals like to seek out a variety. “She likes clover. It’s high in protein,” he notes.

Grass-Fed Cows Are Healthier

Grazing cows that eat a forage-based diet tend to have healthier digestive systems. “That is the best approach to suit their system” says Gillian Butler, an animal nutritionist with the Nafferton Ecological Farming Group at Newcastle University in Great Britain. “The further you go away from that, the more problems you’re likely to have.”

A few years ago, Butler had a hunch that cows that ate lots of grass and clover, which is rich in an important omega-3 fatty acid called ALA, would produce milk with more of the omega-3 as well. To test this theory, she did a study with dairy cows in the UK. She compared the milk of cows that ate a forage-based diet with the milk of cows fed concentrated feed and corn silage.

“We were extremely surprised at the order of magnitude of the difference. We were getting an extra 60 percent of omega-3 in our organic milk,” Butler says.

She found that the differences in their milk were greatest in the summer months when cows, especially those on organic farms, graze the most. Her findings were published earlier this year in the Journal of Food Science and Agriculture.

“We know these fatty acids are good for us,” says Butler. “And we know that grass-feeding leads to higher levels. What we don’t know is: Is organic milk better for us?” What’s needed next, she says, are some studies in people. Detecting any particular health benefit could be tough and could take many years.

The cut-off date to weigh in on the USDA’s proposal is Dec. 23.