The label fight.... Just crazy

[Guest guest]

I just cannot understand the logic.

They certainly do have the right to use hormones in their cows and sell

milk that way.

*I* have the right to *choose* NOT to purchase it and I need a label to

tell me that.

If they feel that their milk is safe with hormones added, why do they

feel the need to hide their milk by making others unlabel their milk.

Consumers are not all stupid.

[bULK] Fighting on a Battlefield the Size of a Milk

Label

Importance: Low

Colleagues, the following is FYI and does not necessarily reflect my own

opinion. I have no further knowledge of the topic. If you do not wish to

receive these posts, set your email filter to filter out any messages

coming from @nutritionucanlivewith.com and the program will remove

anything coming from me.

---------------------------------------------------------

Fighting on a Battlefield the Size of a Milk Label

Steve Ruark for The New York Times

Milk at the Rutter's plant in ville, Pa., is labeled as having " no

artificial growth hormone. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/business/09feed.html?_r=1 & oref=slogin

By ANDREW MARTIN

Published: March 9, 2008

IT may be the last stand of Posilac.

P. Casey for The New York Times

Posilac is the brand name of a Monsanto synthetic hormone used to

increase milk production in cows.

A new advocacy group closely tied to Monsanto has started a

counteroffensive to stop the proliferation of milk that comes from cows

that aren't treated with synthetic bovine growth hormone.

The group, called American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation

of Technology, or Afact, says it is a grass-roots organization that came

together to defend members' right to use recombinant bovine

somatotropin, also known as rBST or rBGH, an artificial hormone that

stimulates milk production. It is sold by Monsanto under the brand name

Posilac.

Dairy farmers are indeed part of the organization. But Afact was

organized in part by Monsanto and a Colorado consultant who lists

Monsanto as a client.

Afact has also received help from Osborn & Barr, a marketing firm whose

founders include a former Monsanto executive. The firm received a

contract in 2006 to help with the Posilac campaign.

Lori Hoag, a spokeswoman for the dairy unit of Monsanto, said her

company did provide financial support to Afact. But Ms. Hoag asserted

that the group is led by farmers, not Monsanto.

" They make all the governing decisions for their organization, " she

said. " Monsanto has nothing to do with that. "

Afact has come together as a growing number of consumers are choosing

milk that comes from cows that are not treated with the artificial

growth hormone. Even though the Food and Drug Administration has

declared the synthetic hormone safe, many other countries have refused

to approve it, and there is lingering concern among many consumers about

its impact on health and the welfare of cows.

The marketplace has responded, and now everyone from Whole Foods Market

to Wal-Mart Stores sells milk that is labeled as coming from cows not

treated with the hormone. Some dairy industry veterans say it's only a

matter of time before nearly all of the milk supply comes from cows that

weren't treated with Posilac. According to Monsanto, about a third of

the dairy cows in the United States are in herds where Posilac is used.

And the trend might not stop with milk. Kraft is planning to sell cheese

labeled as having come from untreated cows.

But consumer demand for more natural products has conflicted with some

dairy farmers' desire to use the artificial hormone to bolster

production and bottom lines, and it has certainly interfered with

Monsanto's business plan for Posilac.

Cows typically produce an extra gallon a day when they are treated with

Posilac. That can translate into serious money for dairy farmers at a

time when prices are near record highs.

So Afact has embarked on a counteroffensive that includes meeting with

retailers and pushing efforts by state legislators and state agriculture

commissioners to pass laws to ban or restrict labels that indicate milk

comes from untreated cows.

Last fall in Pennsylvania, Dennis Wolff, the agriculture secretary,

tried to ban milk that was labeled as free of the synthetic hormone

because, he said, consumers were confused. Mr. Wolff's office

acknowledged that it had no consumer research to back up his claim, and

he eventually had to scale back his plans when consumer groups and Gov.

G. Rendell balked.

Instead, the state tightened up the language on milk labels to make sure

it was more accurate.

But Posilac's supporters haven't given up.

In recent months, labeling changes have been floated in New Jersey,

Ohio, Indiana, Kansas, Utah, Missouri and Vermont, according to

Hansen, who has tracked the issue as a senior scientist for Consumers

Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports.

A Consumer Reports survey last summer found that 88 percent of consumers

believed that milk from cows not treated with synthetic hormones should

be allowed to be labeled as such.

Afact says it believes that such " absence " labels can be misleading and

imply that milk from cows treated with hormones is inferior. In fact,

the F.D.A. maintains that there is no significant difference between

milk from cows that are treated and from those that are not.

Afact also argues that some consumers are paying a premium for milk that

doesn't include artificial hormones.

" We know it's a technology that makes us money and is safe for our

cows, " said Carrol , a Kansas dairy farmer who is co-chairman of

Afact. Mr. said he became involved in the issue because his

cooperative called him and asked him to stop using Posilac; instead, he

found a new cooperative.

Ms. Hoag of Monsanto said her company was not actively pushing changes

in milk labeling laws.

Advocates for Posilac, including Monsanto, have been complaining for

years about milk labeled as free of artificial bovine growth hormone. In

September 2006, Holloway, president of the Monsanto dairy unit,

gave a speech in which he said the " fundamental issue " was dairy

farmers' ability to choose the best technology. " Dairy farmer choice to

use a variety of F.D.A.-approved technologies is at risk, " he said.

That same year, the Monsanto dairy unit hired Osborn & Barr to handle,

among other things, the Posilac brand, according to an article in the

St. Louis Business Journal.

In 2007, Monsanto and several dairy organizations met by phone to " lay

the groundwork " for a grass-roots organization, according to an online

dairy industry newsletter.

Afact was created in the fall of 2007. In addition to receiving money

from Monsanto, Afact has received help with its Web site from Osborn &

Barr, said Monty G. , a Colorado consultant who was hired to

organize the group.

Afact believes that the push for milk from untreated cows is being

driven by advocates like Consumers Union and PETA, " who make a profit,

living and business by striking fear in citizens, " Mr. said in an

e-mail message.

The group also believes it will be hard for food retailers to " move away

from the rBST-free stance without legislation and government policy, "

according to an Afact presentation to dairy farmers in January.

In the presentation, Afact also listed " integrity, " " honesty " and

" transparent " as " words we wish to embody. "

They could start by being more straightforward about who is behind

Afact.

--

ne Holden, MS, RD

" Ask the Parkinson Dietitian " http://www.parkinson.org/

" Eat well, stay well with Parkinson's disease "

" Parkinson's disease: Guidelines for Medical Nutrition Therapy "

http://www.nutritionucanlivewith.com/