You are both right and wrong in the second. It is government over regulations which are pushed by the Luddites. Most regulations come from some bunch of city dwelling dumbos pushing some badly done research.
"Can you prove that your feeding the cow clover will never cause harm to anyone or anything ever? No?"
And the next thing you know there is a regulation against feeding cows clover.
Even the USDA admits that it increases mastitis in this pro rBGH article.
Less partisan studies, such as this by Canadian Veterinarians, show a marked increase in mastitis and an increase in culling (thereby decreasing the productive life of a cow).
I have no problems with farmers choosing to use the drug or not, but allowing the market to decide is the best route. Anecdotally, my friends who own dairies chose not to use rBGH for the reasons stated above--long before the consumer scares made it popular. And BTW, arguing that not adopting a change can be the reason for any change (such as price) is not remotely logical.
Feeding cows is inherently dangerous. There is a number of people, which is greater than one, each year that are killed by living cows. Ergo, the act of merely feeding cows and keeping them alive, is, by its very nature, dangerous to some one, somewhere! Ergo it is imperative that we should immediately b an cows!
I am also certain that someone has also been killed by a kitten. . . so we should also ban kittens. Shall we talk about people killing people? Oh, what to do. . .