the product was approved for use in the us by the fda, and its use began in 1994. the product is now sold in all 50 states. the fda stated that food products made from rbst-treated cows are safe for human consumption, and no statistically significant difference exists between milk derived from rbst-treated and untreated cows. the fda found bst to be biologically inactive when consumed by humans and found no biological distinction between rbst and bst. in 1990, an independent panel convened by the national institute of health supported the fda opinion that milk and meat from cows supplemented with rbst is safe for human consumption. labeling the fda does not require special labels for products produced from cows given rbst, but has charged several dairies with "misbranding" their milk as having no hormones, because all milk contains hormones and cannot be produced in such a way that it would not contain any hormones. monsanto sued oakhurst dairy of maine over its use of a label which pledged not to use artificial growth hormones. the dairy stated that its disagreement was not over the scientific evidence for the safety of rbst (monsanto's complaint about the label), but, "we're in the business of marketing milk, not monsanto's drugs." the suit was settled when the dairy agreed to add a qualifying statement to its label: "fda states: no significant difference in milk from cows treated with artificial growth hormones." the fda recommends this additional labeling, but does not require it. the settlement itself caused much controversy, with anti-rbst advocates claiming that oakhurst had capitulated in response to intimidation by a larger corporation and others claiming that oakhurst's milk labels were in and of themselves using misleading scare tactics that deserved legal and legislative response. ohio in 2008, ohio's department of agriculture (oda) banned the use of labeling in dairy products as rbst-free because it was deemed misleading to consumers. however, the international dairy foods association and the organic trade association claimed oda's ban was a violation of the first amendment by not allowing consumers to decide whether they deem the milk was safe and filed suit against the bill. "the district court granted summary judgment in favor of ohio, concluding that using 'rbst' as a label was inherently misleading because it implies a compositional difference between those products that are produced with rbst and those that are not." kansas in 2009, the kansas legislature passed a bill that would have required dairies that did not use rbst to print disclaimers on their labels that stated, "the food and drug administration has determined there are no significant differences between milk from cows that receive injections of the artificial hormone and milk from those that do not." the bill was vetoed in the last days of the 2009 legislative session by then-governor kathleen sebelius. the legislature removed the labeling language and passed the bill without the provision. pennsylvania in 2007, pennsylvania adopted a regulation that would have banned the practice of labeling milk as derived from cows not treated with rbst. pennsylvania's agriculture secretary dennis wolff made a statement in support of the measure. this prohibition was to go into effect 1 january 2008, but after the comment period, the guidelines were adjusted to only ban "rbst-free" claims and instead allow claims that farmers had pledged not to use rbst and accompany such claims with a disclaimer such as, "no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbst-treated and non-rbst-treated cows." response from milk producers and retailers in response to concerns from consumers and advocacy groups about milk from cows treated with rbst, some dairies, retailers, and restaurants have published policies on use of rbst in production of milk products they sell, while others offer some products or product lines that are labelled "rbst-free" or the like. other dairies and industry groups have worked to assure the public that milk from rbst-treated cows is safe. in reaction to these trends, in early 2008, a pro-rbst advocacy group called american farmers for the advancement and conservation of technology (afact), made up of dairies and originally affiliated with monsanto, formed and began lobbying to ban such labels. afact stated that "absence" labels can be misleading and imply that milk from cows treated with rbst is inferior. the organization was dissolved in 2011. the international dairy foods association has compiled a list, last updated in 2009, of state regulations in the u.s. for referencing use of growth hormones on milk labels. response from health organizations the american cancer society "has no formal position regarding rbgh". the american nurses association supports the development of national and state laws, regulations, and policies that specifically reduce the use of rbgh or rbst in milk and dairy production in the united states. response from political organizations health care without harm opposes the use of recombinant bovine growth hormone due to its adverse impacts on animals and potential harm to humans. oregon physicians for social responsibility recommends buying products from cows not injected with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbgh or rbst). production and profitability one study found a profit of $15.88 us per cow on average by using rbst.