references were trustworthy... I am going to take a leaf out of Steve Ns book - give me your best reference that proves your point that ... . BTW - what exactly is your point again?
rBST is dangerous or agbiotech regulates itself ??
My point was that, in general, regulatory capture happens far more often than you might care to admit, meaning regulatory agencies are not necessarily governed by science as much as by general socio-economics and politics. It takes far more than a single reference to point out a trend, and (lest we forget) not everything is quantifiable in a hard-science way, so when taking into account social and political aspects you must understand that it's like apples and oranges and you can't expect hard data and exact P-values.
I don't have an axe to grind against rBST, necessarily, but it's quite far from a clear cut case, and I, as a rule, see regulatory agencies side with big business. Much of that is definitely a sort of confirmation bias, as you wouldn't see it reported when they actually do their job well, but the trend (throughout the Bush years at least) is clear.
If you don't think you're being ideological, fine, but I still can't see how, for example, you can brush off a 20% to 25% increase in anything
, without addressing the direct, indirect, and unintended consequences (the ever-present demon of cost externalisation). That stinks of ideology to me.