Missing: Truth in milk labeling

In late October, without warning or any public discussion, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) notified 19 dairies that “their labels are false or misleading and need to be changed.”  So, what kinds of labels were so terrible that the PDA felt they had to be removed from milk cartons immediately?  Labels that told the consumer that the cows that produced the milk had not been given any artificial hormones.  Examples of some of the supposedly “misleading” labels include, “Our farmers’ pledge:  no artificial growth hormones;” “From cows not treated with the growth hormone rBST;” and “Free of artificial growth hormones.”  As of February 1, 2008, these labels will be illegal.  The PDA says that such labels confuse consumers, “making it hard for consumers to make informed decisions.”

Some cows are in fact given an artificial hormone, produced by Monsanto.  Called recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH) or recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST), it is a genetically engineered drug designed to increase milk production.  However, farmers who don't use the drug have discovered that many consumers actually prefer their milk produced the natural way, and those producers are using their non-use of the hormone as a selling point.

We find the PDA's sudden prohibition against farmers telling consumers they are not using hormones to be surprising, to say the least.  Some 13 years ago, shortly after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made its controversial decision to approve the use of hormones, it also issued guidance specifically saying that dairies whose farmers didn’t use the artificial hormone could label their milk as “from cows not treated with rbST/rbGH.”

During the years since then, consumers have increasingly sought out milk from untreated cows.  A significant number of stores and chains, including Starbucks, Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods, Krogers and Publix, now offer milk and other dairy products labeled as coming from cows not treated with rbGH or rbST.

In late 2002, Monsanto asked the Maine Attorney General to declare "Our Farmer’s Pledge:  No Artificial Growth Hormones" labels “misleading” but he refused.  (Read our letter to the Maine Attorney General, asking that he not grant Monsanto’s request.  In 2007, Monsanto asked the FDA and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to take action against such labels, but they refused as well.  In late August, the FTC wrote to Monsanto: “The FTC staff agrees with FDA that food companies may inform consumers in advertising, as in labeling, that they do not use rBST.”  However, in the Secretary of Agriculture of the state of Pennsylvania, Monsanto has apparently found a sympathetic ear.

Questions also remain about the safety of rbGH use, which FDA approved in 1993, but which has been rejected in Canada and the European Union (Read our op-ed on this issue here.)

—Michael Hansen

Comments

[jimmyrodriguez]

Are you freaking kidding, no i guess not. This is a perfect example of how even the F.D.A. has fallen in line,along with almost every other agency. All for the sake of more business growth without concern for the welfare of the citizens. Imagine they would side with a drug manufacturer who by default can only bring side effects as do all chemichals & drugs and punish those that are actually trying to do the right thing, are you kidding me? It' a shame, the mighty buck wins against health. I should'nt be surprised but i am, I always considered milk, the ultimate wholesome children & babies food, the labeling action speaks volumes.

[Byron]

Lots more here:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Labeling_Issues%2C_Revolving_Doors%2C_rBGH%2C_Bribery_and_Monsanto

[scQue]

I live in PA. I heard about this back in October, and it infuriated me. And what really--REALLY--p*%#s me off is how these decisions are made without any public input whatsoever! When I tried to contact the PDA, the contact page of their website had be conveniently REMOVED. When I contacted my legislators, they assured me that they would pass my comments along... but to where? Senator Jake Corman sent me back what appeared to be a very thoughtful letter. He compared the issue to how PA is the only state in the country that allows the sale of "raw" milk products, provided proper permits are maintained--and I firmly stand behind the consumer's right to purchase raw dairy products and to know what processes are going into the production of the dairy they buy. But the more I read his letter, the more it seemed like a sort of bait-and-switch maneuver: sure it was something I felt passionate about in terms of legislation, but I really could not see how the issues were similar.

But now, looking at that letter a few months later, I can see with hindsight that Sen.Corman was hinting at the nationwide legislation that will be coming down the pike.

If there was ever an example of how big business runs our government, this is a pretty clear example.

~sc'Que