Monsanto Milk Marketing -Local Labeling Laws

(recovered from our old Bulletin Board)

Yes,we know Monsanto sold the Prosilac manufacturing rights to Lilly a while back…please don’t confuse the issue at hand. Labeling…

===

Rick North has shared a Huffington Post article (October 2009):

10 Things the FDA Can Do to Improve Nutrition Labeling

They also included a personal note:
Everyone -This Huffington Post entry was totally wrong. Here was my comment:

This comment is pending approval and won’t be displayed until it is approved. The statement that says the FDA doesn’t allow rBGH (rBST) -free labels (#8) is incorrect. The FDA has always allowed these labels,but recommended that the label also include a disclaimer that there is no significant difference between rBGH and rBGH-free dairy.

In the last few years,several states,often with the support of Monsanto,the drug’s developer,have tried to ban or restrict rBGH-free labels,but consumer backlash has defeated all these attempts except in Ohio,where a Dept. of Agriculture rule restricting such labeling is now in court.

Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility works with numerous other organizations across the nation to educate the public on the animal and human health risks associated with rBGH. We do not agree with the FDA’s controversial opinion.

For more information,brochures and a video,go to www.oregonpsr.org and click on Campaign For Safe Food.

===

===

http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/

Think Before You “PINK”

As seen in Facebook,from Vicki Watson Walker :

I dont’ know how many of you support breast cancer research by purchasing things ‘pink’ -but please please go to this website before you do it again. So much hype and misdirection happens because we do not ask questions. How much money is being spent on the CAUSE of breast cancer? Not just on the cure. Why not stop it before it becomes cancer? HOW? Research. How many companies that throw a pink ribbon on their product,contribute to possbile causes of breast cancer? Please think before you Pink.

Think Before You Pink »

Source:thinkbeforeyoupink.org

Eli Lilly is now the sole manufacturer of rBGH — the artificial growth hormone given to dairy cows that increases people’s risk of cancer. Eli Lilly also manufactures breast cancer treatment medications and a pill that “reduces the risk” of breast cancer. …

===
2009-09-13
NOTE:
We’ve seen a lot more on the milk scene in the past few months…our friends,across the nation,have been on the job the whole time. We’re posting the next excerpt (and a reply from Michael Hansen) from e-Mail so eaters can catch up a bit on our ongoing anti-spin efforts.
*** [rBGH] new study on labeling effects on milk consumption ***
Everyone – An interesting article from the Capital Press on the effects of labeling on milk sales is below and at http://www.capitalpress.com/orewash/mp-dairy-stigma-091109-graph.
For the most part,it’s good news for us because it demonstrates again that labeling is a key for consumer education and demand. However,I don’t agree with some of the assumptions and conclusions of the co-author quoted.
First,he says that participants were told that conventional milk is the “most common type sold in stores.” Not any more. We estimate that 60% – 75% of fluid milk sold in stores is rBGH-free (includes organic). In fact,in many states,such as Oregon,Washington,California and northern New England states,it’s completely rBGH-free or nearly so. In many other states,rBGH-free is the majority. And when Wal-Mart went rBGH-free for their store brand,that really tipped things all over the country.
Second,even though he admits that milk demand has declined for decades,he still draws the conclusion that the labeling may be diminishing overall demand. But if you look at the graph,the numbers don’t support this conclusion. The big move toward rBGH-free,and the labeling that went with it,has only been in the past four years. Whole milk has been declining for four decades and there hasn’t been any acceleration of this decline in the last few years. Equally as revealing,there hasn’t been any decline at all in low-fat milk consumption in the past four years (I realize the graph doesn’t include 2008.)
I wouldn’t be surprised if our opponents used this study to criticize rBGH-free labeling for decreasing overall milk consumption.
Rick
Advertisement

Top of Form
Updated:Thursday,September 10,2009 10:04 AM
Top of Form

Bottom of Form
Advertisement
Study:Labels may cut milk demand
Organic,rBST-free designations do not attract new customers,study says
By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI
Capital Press
The introduction of rBST-free and organic labels has stigmatized conventional milk and may reduce overall consumer demand for milk,according to a new economic study.
“People care about labeling. It does affect behavior,”said Kent Messer,University of Delaware professor and one of the study’s authors.
The study,set to be published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics in November,attempted to analyze consumer behavior through a bidding experiment.
About 150 study participants were asked to bid on cartons of conventional,rBST-free and organic milk.
Participants were presented with similar information about these milk types as they’d typically see in a grocery store.
For example,organic milk was described as being “produced without the use of antibiotics,synthetic growth hormones or pesticides”and rBST-free milk was labeled “does not contain artificial growth hormones.”
Some dairy farmers use rBST,or recombinant bovine somatotropin,to increase milk production.
Information about conventional milk did not mention production techniques,but participants were told it’s the most common type sold in stores.
On average,participants bid 33 percent less per quart for conventional milk after being exposed to information about rBST-free milk and 45 percent less per quart after seeing information about organic milk.
“This finding supports the idea that conventional milk becomes a stigmatized good after rBST-free and organic milk are introduced into the marketplace,”the study said.
The results also indicate that rBST-free and organic milk labels weaken the overall consumer demand for milk.
When conventional milk was presented last,participants bid 26 percent less for all types of milk compared to when conventional milk was presented first.
Conventional milk is the predominant product in the marketplace,which would contribute to the overall demand reduction,said Messer.
However,it’s possible that labeling causes people to develop negative associations with all milk types,he said.
Milk consumption had been declining long before labeling became an issue in the dairy industry,Messer said.
The study indicates that labeling doesn’t attract new milk consumers —rather,people are shifting away from consuming conventional milk and potentially all milk,he said.
“This doesn’t solve the problems that are already occurring in milk consumption,”Messer said.
Though the study clearly shows labeling has an effect on demand,the conclusions for the dairy industry aren’t as obvious.
Some states have tried to ban such labeling,but that only resulted in a backlash from consumers,he said.
“I don’t advocate the repression of this information because that makes it look like there’s something to hide,”Messer said.
Instead,Messer recommends that conventional dairy marketers adopt “multiple layers of communication”to reassure consumers about the safety of their product.
For example,all milk is tested to ensure that it hasn’t been adulterated.
Organic labels promote the absence of pesticides and antibiotics,which may lead consumers to infer other milk types contain these substances.
In fact,the absence of adulterants isn’t unique,but conventional milk producers are basically “giving away”the advantage of making that claim,he said.
“It may be conventional milk needs to start putting it on their labels,too,”Messer said. “It’s not really a separation.”
However,that doesn’t solve the phenomenon of “all news is bad news,”he said.
For example,news of environmental cleanups tend to drive down nearby property values —even though any potential hazard existed previously and is now being mitigated,Messer said.
Another one of Messer’s studies looked at consumer reactions to information about bovine spongiform encephalopathy,or mad cow disease.
The study found that consumer fears could be remedied with positive advertising.
“We saw that people bounced back,”Messer said,noting that a similar strategy would be helpful for dairy producers.
“Keep a positive message about your product,”he said.
Advertisement
_______________________________________________
From:Michael Hanson
Rick et al.—The reason this is getting a bunch of press now is that a new study,“Does production labeling stigmatize conventional milk?” is being published in the next issue of the American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Interestingly,2 of the 3 authors were from Cornell and the study was in part funded by the NY Milk Promotion Order Advisory Board,so they have a bias toward rbGH being wonderful and any labeling hurting milk sales.

More importantly,I disagree with Messer’s assertion that “The study indicates that labeling doesn’t attract new milk consumers —rather,people are shifting away from consuming conventional milk and potentially all milk.” The study does indeed suggest that people,when giving information on the three types of milk will consume less conventional milk,but the demand remains the same or increases for the other milks. The study was done via an auction system. The participants were given $5 just to show up. They then were presented with various milks in three forms—skim,low fat and whole. The milk was served in cups so there was no brand identification and folks were told to try the milk and then asked how much they’d pay for it (through a somewhat complicated mechanism). The experiment also changed the order in which milk was presented—some people were presented with conventional milk first,others rbGH-free and others organic—to control for order effects. But all the people were presented with all three types of milk. When people were presented with conventional milk first,the average bid price (price willing to be paid) was $1.28 per quart. When conventional milk was presented last,e.g. after rbGH-free and organic,the average willingness to pay price dropped to $0.61—a greater than 50% decline! For organic there was no change between presented first vs. presented last—$1.37/qt when and $1.36,respectively—while there was a slight increase for rbST-Free-$1.05 and $1.15,respectively. These data show that demand for rbGH-free and organic,as determined by how much you’re willing to pay,increased or stayed the same,respectively;it clearly did not decrease. If folks were potentially shifting from all milk,you’d expected to see a decline in what they’d be willing to pay on average.

I think that the study clearly shows that when people are given truthful information about the milk,they use it to make their buying decision and to stay away from milk from cows that may have been treated with rbGH. To say that such information is a “stigma” is to assume that the consumers are dumb or ignorant. The bias of these authors can be clearly seen in the version of this article (“The stigma effect of rBST [sic] labeling on milk”) that was published last fall in the NICPRE (National Institute for Commodity Promotion Research and Evaluation) Quarterly (available at:http://commodity.aem.cornell.edu/nicpre/newslet/vol14no4/issue%2056.pdf) First,they talk about “psychological stigma,a phenomenon in which people develop negative associations with something even though there is no evidence of that item causing a problem or presenting a health risk.” Second,the conclusion is even more extreme:“The economic implications of the stigmatization of goods have not been thoroughly examined. Producers of conventional items have been concerned about negative consequences that could result from introduction of competing products with labels that market them as ‘better’ or ‘safer’ products,including bird-friendly coffee,free-range chicken,sustainably harvested wood,eco-friendly bananas,and a variety of fair-trade and hormone-free products.” The examples the authors cite are cases where more information is being given to consumers that they find valuable. To label this information as “stigmatization” is simply absurd. There are differences between bird-friendly coffee and conventional coffee,sustainably harvested wood and conventional wood,etc. and those differences are increasingly important to consumers. So now that the marketplace is working,with more information being available,to simply saying this is “stigmatization” is incredibly insulting to consumers. Markets work on the basis of information and consumer desires are based on a number of factors. The work clearly does imply that rbGH is on the way out. So,that’s good news for us.
===

Kansas Milk Labeling Update -from Monday,May 11th,2009

Sebelius Veto Stands

Kansas rBGH-Free Labeling Preserved

The four-month battle to preserve Kansas’s rBGH-free labeling without restrictions ended 2:30 a.m. Saturday (May 9,2009) when the state legislature adjourned without an over-ride attempt of Kathleen Sebelius’ veto of HB 2121.
The bill would have required the FDA-recommended disclaimer that there is no significant difference between rBGH and non-rBGH milk. This disclaimer is false and Oregon PSR coordinated a coalition of local,state and national organizations and individuals in opposing the bill.

Although organizations like the Kansas Farmers Union,Kansas Rural Center,Kansas Sierra Club and Kansas City Food Circle opposed the bill,it passed both the House and Senate. The powerful Kansas Farm Bureau favored it.

As we’ve said on numerous occasions,the only way we were able to stop this bill is by working closely with groups like the Kansas organizations cited above and national organizations like Consumers Union,Center for Food Safety,Food and Water Watch,Organic Consumers Association,National Family Farm Coalition,Health Care Without Harm and many others.

In addition,we worked closely with the International Dairy Foods Association (which doesn’t oppose the use of rBGH like us),but fought the bill on the grounds that dairy processors should have freedom of labeling. Progressive rBGH-free dairies like Ben &Jerry’s and Stonyfield also threw their resources into the fray. Finally,thousands of individuals took the time to call or send e-mails or letters to legislators and the governor to express their views. Gov. Sebelius wasn’t kidding when she cited the “overwhelming opposition” to this bill.

Finally,we worked directly with two key state legislators,Sen. Marci Francisco and Rep. Josh Svaty,who were instrumental in leading the opposition inside the capitol. Our thanks go out to both for all their hard work that was such a crucial component of this victory.

This was the third attempt in Kansas to ban or restrict rBGH-free labeling. The saga started in February 2008 with a bill,backed by Monsanto,that would have banned any kind of labeling telling consumers about the rBGH status of the milk. It was pure,unadulterated censorship. Our national coalition immediately connected with Kansas organizations and within a week mounted a massive opposition in the state legislature to stop the bill in its tracks.

Then,last fall,the Kansas Dept. of Agriculture tried to implement rules that,while not banning all labeling,would have made it much more difficult and still specifically banned “rBGH-free” labels. In other words,they would have made it illegal to tell the truth. After another all-out opposition campaign to KDA and Governor Sebelius,they announced they would not implement the rules. That’s when pro-rBGH legislators adopted the KDA rules almost verbatim and made them into a bill last January.

Oregon PSR will always defend freedom of speech and the consumers’ right to know. We’re keeping a constant watch out for any other anti-labeling bills or rules that may pop up.

And now that Kansas has been settled,we’ll have more time to take the offensive once again. Finally,we’ll be getting more news to you on the overall anti-GMO effort beyond the rBGH world. Stay tuned –

Rick North,Project Director – Campaign For Safe Food

Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility

503-968-1520

hrnorth (@) hevanet.com

www.oregonpsr.org

===

Thanks to all of you,and your friends,all who are speaking out and making a difference in the world -this is not a total victory,but we seem to have re-won our rights (in Kansas,anyway,for the time being) to milk labeling based on consumer demand. Thank you,one and all. —Dave Lawrence -WebMinion

===

Thank you for contacting me regarding [Kansas] HB2295 and HB2121. I am pleased to be able to report that this afternoon the Senate Agriculture committee met and gutted the existing language in HB2295 that referred to milk labeling and replaced it with the language that had been in HB2121 regarding pesticide and dairy fees and SB316 that transfers some responsibilities for the review of nutrient utilization plans from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Health and Environment. The new HB2295 was heard in the Senate,and passed 40-0.

I appreciated hearing from so many of my constituents and others who wanted labels with accurate and consistent information to help them make informed choices in the marketplace. Thank you again for your comments and support.

Marci Francisco

Kansas Senator,2nd District
===

Re:Milk (Labeling) in Kansas

5/4/2009 UPDATE

3rd hand info [lightly redacted],from friends in touch with friends in the local legislature:

“[Kansas lawmakers have met and are acting] regarding the arrangement that had been previously discussed – gutting the infamous HB 2295 and stuffing it with the non-controversial parts of HB 2121…the Senate Ag Committee would be meeting today to discuss this.”

“…Not only did the Ag Committee do this,but the new,improved 2295 has already passed the Senate 40-0. The [new] bill did not include ANY provisions of the dairy labeling,including inspections by state officials,so it was a clean break.”

“…assuming it now must go to the House for a vote. I’m assuming this action will take away any reason for an over-ride attempt on Gov. Sebelius’s veto,but I don’t have that confirmed.”

…the [current legislative] session would last until at least this Wednesday.”

===

Kansas HB 2121 of 2009 passed the Senate 22-15 and the House 82-42,
but Governor Sebelius vetoed the bill
with explicit comments regarding milk labeling (see articles,below).

[4/25/2009] —A veto override in the next days or weeks is not out of the question. Your letters,e-mails and phone calls to your own Kansas representatives are just as important today as they have been for the past few months. Please take time to contact your legislators,reaffirming your commitment to accurate and descriptive food labeling. The recent voting records are shown below -we will provide links to contact information,ASAP.

If you plan to phone your representatives,legislators need to be called at home through Tuesday. Right now phones at the capital have messages saying legislators won’t be in till Wednesday. On Wednesday there will secretaries to answer phones again.

HOUSE VOTE ON HB 2121

On motion of Rep. Powell to adopt the conference committee report on HB 2121,Rep. Svaty offered a substitute motion to not adopt the conference committee report and asked that a new conference committee be appointed. The substitute motion did not prevail.

The question then reverted back to the original motion of Rep. Powell and the conference committee report was adopted.

On roll call,the vote was:Yeas 82;Nays 42;Present but not voting:0;Absent or not voting:1.

Yeas:Bethell,Bowers,Brookens,A. Brown,Brunk,Burgess,Carlson,Craft,Crum,DeGraaf,Faber,Feuerborn,Fund,D. Gatewood,George,Goico,Goyle,Grange,Grant,Hawk,Hayzlett,Henry,Hermanson,Hineman,C. Holmes,M. Holmes,Horst,Huebert,Jack,Johnson,Kelley,Kerschen,Kiegerl,King,Kleeb,Knox,Light,Lukert,Maloney,Mast,McCray-Miller,McLeland,Merrick,Morrison,Moxley,Myers,Navinsky,Neufeld,O’Neal,Olson,Otto,Palmer,Patton,Pauls,Phelps,Pottorff,Powell,Prescott,Proehl,Rhoades,Roth,Sawyer,Schroeder,Schwab,Schwartz,Siegfreid,Sloan,Swanson,Swenson,Tafanelli,Talia,Trimmer,Vickrey,Ward,Watkins,Wetta,Whitham,Williams,B. Wolf,K. Wolf,Worley,Yoder.

Nays:Aurand,Ballard,Benlon,T. Brown,Burroughs,Carlin,Colloton,Crow,Davis,Dillmore,Donohoe,Finney,Flaharty,Frownfelter,Furtado,Garcia,S. Gatewood,Gordon,Henderson,Huntington,Kinzer,Kuether,Landwehr,Lane,Loganbill,Long,Mah,Menghini,Neighbor,O’Brien,Peck,Peterson,Quigley,Rardin,Ruiz,Seiwert,Shultz,Slattery,Spalding,Svaty,Tietze,Winn.

Present but not voting:None.

Absent or not voting:Hill.

===

SENATE VOTE ON HB 2121

Senator Taddiken moved the Senate adopt the Conference Committee Report on HB 2121.

On roll call,the vote was:Yeas 22,Nays 15,Present and Passing 1,Absent or Not Voting 2.

Yeas:Abrams,Apple,Barnett,Brownlee,Brungardt,Colyer,Donovan,Emler,Huelskamp,Kelsey,Lee,Lynn,Marshall,Masterson,McGinn,Morris,Ostmeyer,Petersen,Pyle,Schmidt D,Taddiken,Umbarger.

Nays:Bruce,Faust-Goudeau,Francisco,Haley,Hensley,Holland,Kelly,Kultala,Owens,Pilcher-Cook,Reitz,Schmidt V,Schodorf,Teichman,Vratil.

Present and Passing:Wagle.

Absent or Not Voting:Steineger,Wysong.

The Conference Committee report was adopted.

===

=== The Associated Press posted this article yesterday afternoon. Comments from “Kansas lawmakers”notwithstanding,efforts to protect our rights to effective food labeling will not diminish. Please stand ready to work with us in the near future,to send a clear and persistent message to Monsanto,Lilly,and other corporations which seem determined to keep re-engineered foods on our tables. ===

4/24/2009

Key Kan. lawmakers see veto of milk bill standing

By JOHN HANNA

TOPEKA,Kan.

Supporters of tougher rules for milk labeled as hormone-free probably can’t override Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’veto of their bill,two key legislators said Friday.

The bill would have required dairy producers who market their milk as free of synthetic growth hormones for cows to add a disclaimer,starting in 2011. The disclaimer would have suggested there’s no real difference between milk with and without the hormones.

Some major Kansas agriculture groups backed the bill. They saw it as a way to protect consumers from being misled by what they see as questionable claims about substances such as the artificial growth hormone rBST,which is used to boost a cow’s milk production.

In vetoing the measure Thursday,Sebelius sided with critics who said the bill would hurt small dairies trying to find niche markets and consumers who want hormone-free milk.

Both Senate President Steve Morris,a Hugoton Republican,and Rep. Larry Powell,chairman of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee,noted that the bill failed to garner the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto in either chamber when it passed earlier this month.

“The way the votes went,I don’t think we can override it,”said Powell,a Garden City Republican. “I’m not sure we would want to waste the time trying.”

The bill also contained other provisions on milk inspections,pesticide regulation and regulation of hog farms. Sebelius said legislators should approve those in separate legislation after they return Wednesday in their annual spring break.

Under the bill,products labeled as hormone free would have to have said the federal Food and Drug Administration has determined no significant difference exists between milk derived from cows treated with rBST and cows not receiving the hormone. That’s based on a 1994 FDA finding.

Morris said the issue is the perceived credibility for consumers of a hormone-free label on milk and whether that credibility is deserved.

And Powell said:“I don’t think you need to mislead the consumers one way or the other.”

Consumers Union,which publishes Consumer Reports magazine,had urged Sebelius to veto the measure. It was joined by 29 producers,retailers and health,consumer,agricultural,environmental and animal protection groups.

Those critics said recent data shows the FDA’s previous conclusions aren’t accurate.

“The bill’s provisions on dairy labeling would have made it harder for consumers to get the information they want about the dairy products they consume,”said Michael Hansen,senior scientist at Consumers Union.

In her veto message,Sebelius cited such opposition,which she described as “overwhelming.”

“Furthermore,I am concerned that patchwork labeling requirements that differ from state to state will make it too expensive,in an already troubled economy,to provide consumers with information regarding the dairy products they purchase,”she wrote.

FROM:http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D97P0C6G0.htm

===

YES SHE DID!

We just got the word …More to come,but here’s the press release below:ALL RIGHT!

April 23,2009

Supporting local dairy farmers and consumers,Sebelius vetoes milk bill

Governor calls on legislature to resend legislation without labeling provisions

To support Kansas dairy farmers and consumers,Governor Kathleen Sebelius has vetoed legislation concerning the labels on milk products.

“House Bill 2121 contains a number of provisions relating to pesticide and fertilizer laws and fees as well as dairy inspection and dairy-related fees. Without these fees,Kansas could lose important programs that support essential agricultural business operations in our state. I urge the legislature to send me these components in an independent bill so I can affix my signature and the Department of Agriculture can effectively administer these programs,” Sebelius said.

“However,the Bill before me also provides for changes in dairy labeling that could make it more difficult to provide consumers with clear information.

“The milk labeling provisions negatively impact a dairy producer’s ability to inform consumers that milk is from cows not treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBST).

“Supporters of the bill claim it’s necessary to protect consumers from false or misleading information. Yet there has been overwhelming opposition by consumer groups,small dairy producers and retailers to this proposed legislation.

“Therefore,pursuant to Article 2,Section 14 of the Constitution of the State of Kansas,I veto HB 2121.”

The Governor signed an additional eight bills today and vetoed an additional two.

===

April 8,2009

Governor Kathleen Sebelius
Office of the Governor
Capitol,300 SW 10th Ave.,Ste. 212S
Topeka,KS 66612-1590

Dear Governor Sebelius,

We,the undersigned public health,consumer,agricultural,animal protection and environmental organizations,food processors and retailers are writing to ask you to veto HB 2121 that restricts labels on dairy products from cows not treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH),also called recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST). This law would require a disclaimer (“The FDA has determined that no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbGH-supplemented and non-rbGH-supplemented cows”) in similar font size and on the same panel as where a label states “from cows not treated with rbGH.”

We feel that HB 2121 puts unnecessary obstacles in the way of consumers getting the information they want,restricts free speech rights of dairies and processors,and interferes with the smooth functioning of free markets.

RbGH (or rbST) is an animal drug originally manufactured by Monsanto (and now made by Elanco) that some farmers inject into dairy cows to increase milk production. The latest USDA survey in 2007 estimated that only 15.2% of farmers in the US used rbGH(1) . Since that survey,dozens of processors and retailers,both small and large,have gone rbGH-free,so it’s estimated that far fewer are using it now. Most Kansan farmers contract with Dairy Farmers of America,which is rbGH-free.

We object to a section in this bill,which would make it more difficult for farmers to inform consumers that they are not using this hormone on their cows and require language that may mislead the consumer.

There are several reasons why we particularly oppose the section which requires the disclaimer in a similar font,style,case,size,color and location as the main label claim (e.g. “this milk is from cows not supplemented with rbST”).

First and foremost,we urge you not to require the disclaimer,which was developed in 1994,because there is significant evidence it is not accurate. There are,in fact,significant differences between milk from cows treated with rbGH and from cows not treated,some of which have emerged in the last decade as the science has developed. FDA’s own publications have demonstrated that milk from cows treated with rbGH show statistically significant increases of the hormone insulin-like growth factor 1(2) (IGF-1) (which more recently has been linked to breast(3) ,colorectal (4),and prostate(5) cancer,although whether the increased IGF-1 levels due to rbGH in milk would affect health has not been established).

The milk of treated cows also shows increases in average somatic cell counts (indicative of mastitis infections in cows and an indication of the quality of the milk)(6). The additional antibiotic required to treat these infections can’t help but contribute to the overall problem of antibiotic resistance in humans,a major and increasingly critical national health problem.

The American Nurses Association,Center For Food Safety,Food and Water Watch,National Family Farm Coalition,Humane Society of the U.S. and many other organizations have all officially opposed the use of rbGH. Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports),has said that FDA should suspend approval of rbGH until new evidence (since approval in 1994) related to human safety can be evaluated. Codex Alimentarius,the U.N.’s main food safety body,has twice concluded there was no consensus that rbGH was safe for human consumption,and most of the industrialized nations of the world have not approved its use.

Health Care Without Harm,a coalition of over 460 organizations in 53 nations promoting safe and healthy practices in hospitals,adopted an official position statement in 2006 opposing the use of rbGH based on human and animal health concerns (7). To date,over 160 hospitals all over the country have pledged to discontinue serving rbGH dairy products. The past president of the American Medical Association concurred,asking AMA members not to serve rbGH milk in hospitals(8).

Any state that requires a specific statement on a label has an obligation to ensure that statement is true. It is obvious from a significant body of science and the positions of numerous respected organizations that there are serious questions whether this statement is true. With this level of uncertainty,it is simply not right for Kansas to require it and give Kansans the false impression that there is a consensus that milk from rbGH-treated cows is not “significantly different” from milk from untreated cows.

Second,the disclaimer is not necessary as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has explicitly said that it is not required. In a July 27,1994 letter to the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets,FDA stated “the bottom line is that a contextual statement is not required,that in many instances a statement like “from cows not treated with rbST” would not be misleading,and in no instance is the specific statement “No significant difference . . .” required by FDA.” (9)

Third,we know of no federal agency that requires such a disclaimer to be in a similar font,style,case,size and location as the main label claim,nor is their any such requirement in 49 out of 50 states. This constitutes undue interference with the exercise of free markets and is not necessary to inform the consumer. To have such a detailed requirement will interfere with interstate commerce since adjoining states may have different requirements. Thus,a label that is legal in Missouri could be illegal in Kansas and could mean that that product would not be marketed in Kansas. Also,companies that sell products nationally,such as Ben &Jerry’s ice cream or Tillamook cheese,would either have to not market products in Kansas or change labels on all their products to comply with the regulation.(10) A likely scenario is that,faced with a myriad of state labeling regulations,national companies would stop any kind of rBGH-free labeling at all. This would deprive them of a very valuable marketing tool,since more and more consumers are looking for these labels. The net effect is that consumers would know less about what’s in their food at the same time they are expressing a desire to know more.

HR 2121 will mandate misleading label language and negatively impact Kansan consumers’ ability to make informed decisions about the dairy products they buy. It interferes with farmers and dairies’ rights to free speech. In this era of increased concern about what’s in our food and how it is produced,Kansas should be making more information available,not less.

Thank you for your consideration of this serious issue,and we urge a veto of HB 2121.

Yours,

Kansas

Leslie Siebert,
Catalpa Grove Gardens,Pretty Prairie

Jeanie Wells,General Manager
Community Mercantile Consumer Coop,Lawrence

Henry Creek Four Mill,Peabody

Tim Iwig
Iwig Family Dairy,Tecumseh

Janzen Family Farms,Newton

Kansas City Food Circle

Steve and Betty Augustine
Kayala Emu Estates,Hesston

Daryl. Larson
Larson Acres,McPherson Co.

Little Red Hen Bakery,Newton

Norm’s Flour,Elbing

Craig Volland
Sierra Club,Kansas Chapter

Spring Creek Ranch,Willowdale

Wichitaw Food Coop,Wichitaw
Outside Kansas

Robyn O’Brien,Founder
AllergyKids

Barbara A. Brenner,Executive Director
Breast Cancer Action

Mark Kastel
The Cornucopia Institute

Ronnie Cummins,Executive Director
Organic Consumers Association

Charles Margulis
Center for Environmental Health

Heather Whitehead,Director True Food Network
Center for Food Safety

John Stauber,Executive Director
Center for Media and Democracy

John Kinsman,President
Family Farm Defenders

Wenonah Hauter,Executive Director
Food and Water Watch

Miyun Park,Vice President,Farm Animal Welfare
The Humane Society of the United States

Jeffrey Smith,Executive Director
Institute for Responsible Technology

Katherine Ozer,Executive Director
National Family Farm Coalition

Rick North,Project Director,Campaign for Safe Food
Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility

Mark Lipson,Senior Policy Analyst
Organic Farming Research Foundation

Laurel Hopwood,Genetic Engineering Action Team
Sierra Club

Nancy Hirschberg,VP Natural Resources
Stonyfield Farm,Inc.
________________________________

(1) United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2007. Pg. 79 in Dairy
2007 Part 1:Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the
United States,2007. Veterinary Services,Animal Plant Health Inspection
Service,USDA. October 2007
(2) Freedom of Information Summary POSILAC (sterile sometribove zinc suspension),November 5,1993 At:http://www.fda.gov/cvm/4390.htm#bst6j
(3) Hankinson,S.E.,Willett,W.C.,Colditz,G.A.. Hunter,D.J.,Michaud,D.S.,Deroo,B.,Rosner,B. Speizer,F.E. and M. Pollack. 1998. Circulating concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-1 and risk of breast cancer. Lancet,351(9113):1393-1396.
(4) Giovannucci,E.,Pollack,M.N.,Platz,E.A.,Willett,W.C.,Stampfer,M.J.,Majeed,N.,Colditz,G.A.,Speizer,F.E. and S.E. Hankinson. 2000. A prospective study of plasma insulin-like growth factor-1 and binding protein-3 and risk of colorectal neoplasia in women. Cancer Epidemiology,Biomarkers &Prevention,9:345-349.
(5) Chan,J.M.,Stampfer,M.J.,Giovannucci,E.,Gann,P.H.,Ma,J.,Wilkinson,P.,Hennekens,C.H. and M. Pollack. 1998a. Plasma insulin-like growth factor-I and prostate cancer risk:a prospective study. Science,279:563-566.
(6) Millstone,E,Brunner,E and I White. 1994. Plagiarism or protecting public health? Nature,371:647-648
(7) http://www.noharm.org/details.cfm?ID=1104&type=document
(8) Davis,R. 2008. Making Health Care Greener,AMA eVoice,April 24,2008
(9) Letter dated July 27,1994 from Jerold Mande,Executive Assistant to the Commissioner of FDA,to Harold Rudnick,Director,Division of Milk Control,New York Department of Agriculture and Markets
(10) International Dairy Foods Association Files Suit to Stop Ohio’s Labeling Law. At:http://www.rffretailer.com/CDA/Articles/Industry_News/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_10000000000000370285
_______________________________________________

On April 8,2009 Consumers Union sent a similar letter to Governor Sebelius,see below:
April 8,2009

Governor Kathleen Sebelius
Office of the Governor
Capitol,300 SW 10th Ave.,Ste. 212S
Topeka,KS 66612-1590

Dear Governor Sebelius,

Consumers Union,publisher of Consumer Reports,is writing to ask you to veto HB 2121 that restricts labels on dairy products from cows not treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH),also called recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST). This law would require a disclaimer (“The FDA has determined that no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbGH-supplemented and non-rbGH-supplemented cows”) in similar font size and on the same panel as where a label states “from cows not treated with rbGH.”

Thank you for your consideration of this serious issue,and we urge a veto of HB 2121.

Yours,

Michael Hansen
Senior Scientist
Consumers Union

________________________________

===


subject		URGENT ACTION:Milk Labeling in Kansas - group letter to Gov. Sebelius

Folks,we need your input and energy once again…The milk labeling language (inserted into a larger bill) passed in both the Kansas House and Senate,but not by a terribly wide margin.

Your input is crucial at this time. Please take a few minutes to carefully read and re-distribute this message to more local eaters and GROUPS who will sign-in themselves. Send group results directly to Michael Hansen for a compilation to be sent to Governor Sebelius. Thanks!

————————-

All,

Here is a draft of the group sign-on letter. If there is to be a press release put out on Thursday,then I will need responses from people/organizations by this Wed. afternoon. Sorry for the short turn around time,but the Governor only has this week and next to veto this bill before it becomes law.

Michael Hansen
—hansmi (@) consumer . org

————————-

Governor Kathleen Sebelius
Office of the Governor
Capitol,300 SW 10th Ave.,Ste. 212S
Topeka,KS 66612-1590

Dear Governor Sebelius,

RbGH (or rbST) is an animal drug originally manufactured by Monsanto (and now made by Elanco) that some farmers inject into dairy cows to increase milk production. The latest USDA survey in 2007 estimated that only 15.2% of farmers in the US used rbGH [ref to come]. Since that survey,dozens of processors and retailers,both small and large,have bone rbGH-free,so it’s estimated that far fewer are using it now. Most Kansan farmers contract with Dairy Farmers of America,which is rbGH-free.

We object to a section in this bill,which would make it more difficult for farmers to inform consumers that they are not using this hormone on their cows and require language that may mislead the consumer.

First and foremost,we urge you not to require the disclaimer,which was developed in 1994,because there is significant evidence it is not accurate. There are,in fact,significant differences between milk from cows treated with rbGH and from cows not treated,some of which have emerged in the last decade as the science has developed. FDA’s own publications have demonstrated that milk from cows treated with rbGH show statistically significant increases of the hormone insulin-like growth factor 1[1] (IGF-1) (which more recently has been linked to breast[2],colorectal[3],and prostate[4] cancer,although whether the increased IGF-1 levels due to rbGH in milk would affect health has not been established).

The milk of treated cows also shows increases in average somatic cell counts (indicative of mastitis infections in cows and an indication of the quality of the milk).[5] The additional antibiotic required to treat these infections can’t help but contribute to the overall problem of antibiotic resistance in humans,a major and increasingly critical national health problem.

Health Care Without Harm,a coalition of over 460 organizations in 53 nations promoting safe and healthy practices in hospitals,adopted an official position statement in 2006 opposing the use of rbGH based on human and animal health concerns. To date,over 160 hospitals all over the country have pledged not to discontinue serving rBGH dairy products. The past president of the American Medical Association concurred,asking AMA members not to serve rBGH milk in hospitals.

Any state that requires a specific statement on a label has an obligation to ensure that statement is true. It is obvious from a significant body of science and the positions of numerous respected organizations that there are serious questions whether this statement is true. With this level of uncertainty,it is simply not right for Kansas to require it and give Kansans the false impression that there is a consensus on whether milk from rbGH-treated cows is “significantly different.”

Third,we know of no other government agency,state or federal that requires such a contextual statement to be in a similar font,style,case,size and color as the main label claim. This constitutes undue interference with the exercise of free markets and is not necessary to inform the consumer. To have such a detailed requirement will interfere with interstate commerce since adjoining states may have different requirements. Thus,a label that is legal in Missouri could be illegal in Kansas and could mean that that product would not be marketed in Kansas. Also,companies that sell products nationally,such as Ben &Jerry’s ice cream or Tillamook cheese,would either have to not market products in Kansas or change labels on all their products to comply with the regulation.[7] A likely scenario is that,faced with a myriad of state labeling regulations,national companies would stop any kind of rBGH-free labeling at all. This would deprive them of a very valuable marketing tool,since more and more consumers are looking for these labels. The net effect is that consumers would know less about what’s in their food at the same time they are expressing a desire to know more.

HR 2121 will mandate misleading label language and negatively impact Kansan consumers’ ability to make an informed decision about the dairy products they buy. It interferes with farmers and dairies’ rights to free speech. In this era of increased concern about what’s in our food and how it is produced,Kansas should be making more information available not less.

Thank you for your consideration of this serious issue,and we urge a veto of HB 2121.

Yours,

[1] Freedom of Information Summary POSILAC (sterile sometribove zinc suspension),November 5,1993 At:http://www.fda.gov/cvm/4390.htm#bst6j

[2] Hankinson,S.E.,Willett,W.C.,Colditz,G.A.. Hunter,D.J.,Michaud,D.S.,Deroo,B.,Rosner,B. Speizer,F.E. and M. Pollack. 1998. Circulating concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-1 and risk of breast cancer. Lancet,351(9113):1393-1396.

[3] Giovannucci,E.,Pollack,M.N.,Platz,E.A.,Willett,W.C.,Stampfer,M.J.,Majeed,N.,Colditz,G.A.,Speizer,F.E. and S.E. Hankinson. 2000. A prospective study of plasma insulin-like growth factor-1 and binding protein-3 and risk of colorectal neoplasia in women. Cancer Epidemiology,Biomarkers &Prevention,9:345-349.

[4] Chan,J.M.,Stampfer,M.J.,Giovannucci,E.,Gann,P.H.,Ma,J.,Wilkinson,P.,Hennekens,C.H. and M. Pollack. 1998a. Plasma insulin-like growth factor-I and prostate cancer risk:a prospective study. Science,279:563-566.

[5] Millstone,E,Brunner,E and I White. 1994. Plagiarism or protecting public health? Nature,371:647-648

[6] Letter dated July 27,1994 from Jerold Mande,Executive Assistant to the Commissioner of FDA,to Harold Rudnick,Director,Division of Milk Control,New York Department of Agriculture and Markets

[7] International Dairy Foods Association Files Suit to Stop Ohio’s Labeling Law. At: http://www.rffretailer.com/CDA/Articles/Industry_News/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_10000000000000370285

===

29 Groups Urge Kansas Governor Sebelius to Veto Bill on RBGH Milk Labeling

Friday,April 10,2009::Staff infoZine

State Legislature Backs Biotech Interests Despite Strong Opposition;Consumers in Kansas Could be Misled About the Safety of Their Milk

Washington,D.C. -infoZine -A broad array of 29 farmers,consumer groups,businesses and other organizations sent a letter to Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius,President Obama’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services,urging her to veto HR 2121,a bill passed by the Kansas State Legislature last week which would require an additional disclaimer on labels for dairy products produced from cows not treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST),a genetically engineered,artificial hormone that induces cows to produce more milk. The bill was sent yesterday to Governor Sebelius,who has ten days to veto it.

“Since the FDA’s controversial decision to approve the use of rbGH,questions have only grown about its safety for humans,” said Dr. Michael Hansen,Senior Scientist for Food Safety for Consumers Union,nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports. “HR 2121 interferes with consumers’right to know what is in their food and how it’s produced and farmers and dairies have the right to tell them.” Consumers Union sent a similar letter to Sebelius urging her to veto the bill.

The required disclaimer would read:“the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 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.” That statement is based on an 18-year-old FDA review;however,FDA’s own publications,as well as subsequent scientific studies have shown that there are significant differences,some of which may affect human health. The Kansas bill also goes against long-established Federal policy as outlined by the FDA in a July 27,1994 letter to New York Department of Agriculture and Markets:“The bottom line is that a contextual statement is not required…and in no instance is the specific statement ‘No significant difference has been shown…’required by FDA.”

n addition,the Legislature tacked on the dairy labeling rules of HB 2295 as a rider on HB 2121 without a hearing in the Senate Agriculture Committee. This denied the numerous opponents of labeling restrictions the chance to testify. Even with the lack of proper debate,the bill barely passed the Senate by a 22-15 vote,just two votes short of failing,demonstrating that there is barely a mandate for labeling changes in Kansas.

“As she reviews this bill,and ascends to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,we urge Governor Sebelius to veto this bill,protect the health of Kansas’ citizens,and to leave a legacy of support for the public interest,not special interests,” said Patty Lovera,Assistant Director at Food and Water Watch.

Due to growing consumer demand,companies are removing rbGH from their dairy products across the country. In addition,over 160 hospitals all over the country have pledged to serve rbGH-free products and the past president of the American Medical Association said in a letter to all AMA members that hospitals should serve only milk produced without rbGH.

“Kansas is taking a step in the wrong direction,as more than half of the 100 largest dairy processors in the country have gone partially or completely rbGH-free to satisfy consumer demand,” said Heather Whitehead,True Food Network Director at the Center for Food Safety. “If dairies decide not to label milk as rbGH-free due to these unnecessary labeling requirements,or decide not to sell their products in Kansas,citizens will be denied the chance to make informed choices about what kind of dairy products to buy.”

Local retailers are also concerned about the effects of the labeling requirements. “We hope that Governor Sebelius will veto HB 2121 which could create a financial hardship for the state’s mid-sized and small dairy producers and retailers,and could raise barriers to interstate commerce,” said Devrin Forte,Store Manager at Topeka Natural Foods.

Kansas farms,consumer groups and businesses Catalpa Grove Gardens,Pretty Prairie,Community Mercantile Consumer Coop,Creek Four Mill,Iwig Family Dairy,Janzen Family Farms,Kansas City Food Circle,Kayala Emu Estates,Hesston,Larson Acres,Little Red Hen Bakery,Norm’s Flour,Sierra Club Kansas Chapter,Spring Creek Ranch,and Wichitaw Food Coop signed the letter to Governor Sebelius urging her to veto the bill,along with national groups AllergyKids,Breast Cancer Action,The Cornucopia Institute,Organic Consumers Association,Center for Environmental Health,Center for Food Safety,Center for Media and Democracy,Family Farm Defenders,Food and Water Watch,The Humane Society of the United States,Institute for Responsible Technology,National Family Farm Coalition,Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility,Organic Farming Research Foundation,Sierra Club,and Stonyfield Farm,Inc.

Related link
A copy of the letter
www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_food_safety/010910.html

===

Jeffrey Smith

Posted April 8,2009 | 05:13 PM (EST)

FDA Promotes Unsafe Milk Due to Industry Pressure

The following is the second part of a series called Get Our Milk Off Drugs,written in response to pending legislation that would interfere with dairies who want to label their products as free from genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST). Although the bill was passed in the Kansas legislature,it would effect the labeling of every product sold in the state,including all national brands. Therefore,we ask everyone to email Governor Sebelius before April 16,urging her to veto the bill. Furthermore,since Governor Sebelius is expected to become the new Secretary of Health and Human Services,the email asks her to use her new appointment to ban this dangerous drug once and for all.

The material for this series is drawn from my books Genetic Roulette and Seeds of Deception,and my 18-minute online film Your Milk on Drugs-Just Say No!.

Get Our Milk off Drugs,Part 2

(See part 1 for the link between bovine growth hormone (rbGH) and cancer.)

“The whole rbGH thing represents fundamental flaws in the regulatory process. . . . It was bad science and bad regulation.”

This was the conclusion of former FDA veterinarian Richard Burroughs,who was a lead reviewer in the approval process of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH) for nearly five years. The drug “was approved prematurely without adequate information,”says Burroughs,whose life and career became a casualty in a perfect storm of industry manipulation and political collusion.

As the only member of the FDA team who had dairy herd experience,Burroughs wrote the original protocols for evaluating the safety of rbGH on cows. The FDA didn’t conduct the tests themselves. It was always the drug’s maker who performed the studies and reported the results. But according to Burroughs,they “would come in and try to negotiate the protocols to water them down.”And when they ultimately presented their findings,Burroughs was shocked to discover,“They just went out and skewed the data.”

The drug’s maker Monsanto,for example,claimed that only a handful of cows developed udder infections,but documents later revealed the actual number to be 9,500. Furthermore,infected cows were often dropped from company studies altogether. And in tests designed to show that rbGH injections did not interfere with fertility,leaked FDA documents showed how researchers added cows to the study that were pregnant prior to injection.

According to Burroughs,even FDA officials “suppressed and manipulated data to cover up their own ignorance and incompetence.”He said that since the science behind the rbGH studies was well outside the expertise of agency employees,rather than admit they were in over their heads,“the Center decided to cover up inappropriate studies and decisions.”

One of the problems they faced was that Monsanto flooded them with huge amounts of irrelevant information,making it hard for them to properly analyze what was important. “We were overwhelmed by the magnitude of the research,”says Burroughs. At one point,the Human Safety Division reviewed forty volumes of submissions in just two weeks.

Burroughs refused to accept compromises on safety and demanded more tests. But in late 1989,he was fired and some of his tests canceled. “I was told that I was slowing down the approval process,”

At a trial that later reinstated him at the FDA,his former boss admitted that Burroughs had been set up. When he rejoined the agency,officials never let him see any rbGH data again and made his life miserable. He soon quit.

Rigging the numbers

Although some FDA scientists vehemently defended rbGH,their claims don’t hold up. They said,for example,that bovine growth hormone does not increase substantially in milk from treated cows. The study they cited,however,shows a 26% increase of the hormone. Furthermore,the cows used for that study had received a substitute rbGH formulation,at only 2% of the normal injected dosage.

The FDA scientists claimed that 90% of the bovine growth hormone in the milk was destroyed during pasteurization,so it wouldn’t matter even if there had been a substantial increase. But they failed to mention that the researchers pasteurized the milk 120 times longer than normal,and even then only destroyed 19% of the hormone. So they spiked the milk with powdered hormone-146 times the naturally occurring levels-heated that mixture 120 times longer than normal,and under those artificial conditions were able to destroy 90% of the hormone.

Canadian Government Scientists Say FDA Evaluation was a Façade

Years after the drug was on the market,Canadian government scientists analyzed the FDA’s approval process and wrote a lengthy and scathing report. It recounted omissions,contradictions,weaknesses,and gaps in the FDA’s approval process. Known as the Gaps Analysis Report,it concluded that the FDA’s “1990 evaluation was largely a theoretical review taking the manufacturer’s conclusions at face value. No details of the studies nor a critical analysis of the quality of the data was provided.”

According to the report,since rbGH was a hormone,“its chemistry should have prompted more exhaustive and longer toxicological studies in laboratory animals.”These are “usually required . . . to ascertain human safety.”Because they weren’t conducted,“such possibilities and potential as sterility,infertility,birth defects,cancer and immunological derangements were not addressed.”

Studies normally used to determine whether a drug is carcinogenic will test two different species for about two years-the lifetime of mice or rats. But Monsanto tested rbGH on rats for 28 or 90 days. FDA official John Scheid later admitted to the Associated Press that the agency had never actually examined the raw data from Monsanto’s rat feeding study;rather they based their conclusions on a summary provided by Monsanto. According to Rachel’s Environment and Health Weekly,“relying on a summary of a study,rather than on detailed data from the study,would violate FDA’s published procedures.”

The Gaps report showed that the FDA “improperly reported”data from the feeding study,arriving at false and unsupported conclusions of safety. When the Canadians pointed out that 20 to 30 percent of the rats fed rbGH developed antibody responses,the FDA was forced to admit that they had accidentally overlooked the antibody study entirely. Furthermore,the Canadian report showed that some male rats which were fed the hormone developed cysts on their thyroid and changes in their prostate gland,which should have prompted further investigation.

The Canadian report also pointed out that injected cows suffer from “numerous adverse effects”and that the milk and meat from sick cows may make us sick. Hormone-treated cows can develop birth
defects,reproductive disorders,udder infection,foot and leg injuries,metabolic disorders,uterine infections,indigestion,bloat,diarrhea,lesions,and shortened lives. Cows on the drug for only eight months had much larger hearts,livers,kidneys,ovaries,and adrenal glands. The Canadians wrote that although the significant changes in the health of cows “may have had an impact on human health,”this was not taken into consideration by the FDA when they approved the drug.

Monsanto Hijacks Regulators

Bovine growth hormone was the first genetically engineered animal drug reviewed by the FDA,and there was a lot of pressure to get it approved quickly. Both the first Bush and Clinton White Houses had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and the agency was apparently doing whatever it took to follow orders.

Disgruntled FDA employees wrote an anonymous letter to Congressmen,claiming that the whole rbGH evaluation process was embroiled in fraud and conflict of interest. For example,they complained of the role of Dr. Margaret Miller.

“[Miller] wrote the FDA’s opinion on why milk from [rbGH]-treated cows should not be labeled. However,before coming to FDA,Dr. Margaret Miller was working for the Monsanto company as a researcher on [rbGH]. At the time she wrote the FDA opinion on labeling,she was still publishing papers with Monsanto scientists on [rbGH]. It appears to us that this is a direct conflict of interest to have in any way Dr. Miller working on [rbGH].”

On April 15,1994,three Congressmen responded to the letter’s allegations by asking the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) to investigate. The congressmen wrote,“The entire FDA review of rbGH seemingly has been characterized by misinformation and questionable actions on the part of both FDA and the Monsanto Company officials.”The letter also describes the previous attempt by the GAO to investigate the rbGH approval process,which they “had to abandon . . . because of the Monsanto Company’s refusal to make available to them all pertinent clinical and related data.”The letter directed the GAO to look into potential conflicts of interest not only for Margaret Miller,but also for Michael Taylor and Susan Sechen.

Sechen formerly conducted Monsanto-sponsored research on rbGH,and then joined the FDA to become the lead reviewer for the drug. Taylor used to be Monsanto’s outside attorney,working with them,according to the Congressmen’s letter,“regarding food labeling and regulatory issues.”The FDA created a new position for Taylor,as Deputy Commissioner for Policy. He was in charge of overseeing the formation of the agency’s policy on rbGH,which ultimately allowed rbGH on the market without adequate testing,and without mandatory labeling.

Taylor even wrote a paper expressing an opinion that if a dairy was to label its milk as rbGH-free,it should also include a bold disclaimer stating,“The FDA has determined that no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbGH-supplemented and non-rbGH-supplemented cows.”This was a suggestion,not a requirement. But the Kansas legislature passed a law on April 3,2009 making it a requirement for products sold in the state-including all national dairy brands. (Ask Governor Sebelius to veto that bill.)

Taylor also oversaw the FDA’s dangerous hands-off policy on genetically modified foods,which also benefited Monsanto at the expense of public health. He eventually left the FDA for the USDA,where he worked on GMO issues. Taylor then took the position of vice president for Monsanto. He now works closely with the Obama administration on food safety.

Milk Controversy Spills into Canada

In 1998,six Canadian government scientists,including those who wrote the Gaps Analysis Report,testified before the Senate that they were being pressured by superiors to approve rbGH,even though they were convinced it was unsafe. They also testified that documents were stolen from a locked file cabinet in a government office,and that Monsanto offered them a bribe of $1-2 million to approve the drug without further tests. (A Monsanto representative told national Canadian television that the scientists had obviously misunderstood an offer for research money. US court documents later revealed that at the same time Canadian officials accused them of attempted bribery,Monsanto was actively offering bribes to about 140 government officials in Indonesia,trying to gain approval for their genetically modified seeds.)

In words reminiscent of Burroughs’experience at the FDA years earlier,the Canadian scientists told the Senate committee,“pharmaceutical manufacturers have far too much influence in the drug approval process.”Scientists “often feel that their careers are threatened if they stand in the way of a drug they don’t believe is safe.”And “managers without scientific experience regularly overrule their decisions.”

One of the whistle-blowing scientists to testify,Shiv Chopra,revealed that the policy in the department is to “serve the client.”The client,however,is no longer defined as the public:“The client is now the industry.”

“We have been pressured and coerced to pass drugs of questionable safety,including [rbGH],”Chopra said. He “testified that one of his managers threatened to ship him and his colleagues to other departments where they would ‘never be heard of again’if they didn’t hurry favorable evaluations of rbGH.”

Soon after testifying,Chopra was suspended by his department for five days without pay. The cause,he later told another Senate committee,was retaliation for his testimony.

In spite of blatant efforts within the government to approve rbGH,Canada ultimately banned it. Nonetheless,the health of Canadians is still impacted,as much of their imported milk is from drugged cows US.

The time for banning rbGH in the US is long overdue. Ask Governor Sebelius,who plans to be our next Secretary of Health and Human Services,to do so as her first act.

Read part 1,and soon part 3 of this series.

Watch the 18-minute documentary Your Milk on Drugs-Just Say No!. Be sure to stock up on rbGH-free dairy brands.

Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception:Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating and Genetic Roulette:The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods from Chelsea Green Publishing. Smith worked at a GMO detection laboratory,founded the Institute for Responsible Technology,and currently lives in Iowa—surrounded by genetically modified corn and soybeans. For more information,visit Chelsea Green.

===

http://www.hutchnews.com/Localregional/milkg
Published online 4/6/2009 10:41 PM

Groups seek veto of milk labeling legislation

Sierra Club spokeswoman says bill not needed,infringes on the rights of consumers.

By Chris Green -Harris News Service -[email protected]

TOPEKA -Groups opposed to new limits on dairy labeling plan to ask Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to veto legislation requiring disclaimers to accompany certain claims.

A still-forming coalition involving the Kansas Sierra Club and several other groups are against House Bill 2121,which passed the Legislature in final votes last week.

The measure requires dairy products claiming to be from cows that don’t receive injections of artificial bovine growth hormone to include a disclaimer on their labels.

The qualifier must state that the Food and Drug Administration has found no significant differences between milk from cows supplemented by the hormone,commonly known as rbST or rBGH,and milk from cows that are not.

Stephanie Cole,a spokeswoman for the Kansas Sierra Club,said the bill was unnecessary and would infringe on consumers’rights to know what’s in their food.

“It is our hope that the governor will veto the bill,”Cole said.

Sebelius spokeswoman Beth Martino wouldn’t say Monday whether Sebelius planned to sign the bill,veto it or let it become law without her signature. Martino would only say that Sebelius would carefully review the bill when she receives it.

In addition to the labeling requirements,the legislation also requires dairy plant operators to verify labeling claims that the milk comes from cows that don’t receive rbST injections with an affidavit from a milk producer.

Supporters of the new labeling requirements say that the changes are needed to keep consumers from being misled about the health and safety of certain milk products.

Since all milk has levels of natural levels of bovine growth hormone in it,they say there’s no scientific way to distinguish whether milk comes from a cow supplemented by rbST.

Jim Reed,a Jewell County dairy farmer and president of the Kansas Dairy Association,said he was hopeful that Sebelius would sign the measure.

“I guess it’s my hope that the governor would be able to understand that it’s a consumer-protection issue,”said Reed,whose group was a chief supporter of the bill.

Reed said a court ruling last month upholding a stricter labeling rule dealing with dairy products in Ohio would enhance the Kansas bill’s chances of becoming law.

Unlike the Ohio law,the new labeling restrictions in Kansas would not apply to products certified as organic under U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines.

Although the FDA has vouched for rbST’s safety,some consumers are concerned that the artificial hormone causes health problems for cows and that it elevates another hormone in cows’milk that is also linked to increased cancer rates in humans.

Critics of the Legislature’s bill,including Rep. Josh Svaty,D-Ellsworth,have expressed concern that the restriction could threaten the sale of popular specialty dairy products within Kansas,such as Ben &Jerry’s Homemade Ice Cream.

Svaty has also said the state itself has a growing contingent of smaller dairy producers specializing in producing milk from cows that don’t receive rbST injections.

“They have a large and growing clientele of people who appreciate that,”Svaty said during a debate in the Kansas House on Friday.
** http://www.hutchnews.com/Localregional/milkg

===

THEY ARE AT IT AGAIN!!

Even with mounting negative feedback from the public (write-ins,e-mail,etc…),with many arguments opposing this labeling bill and others like it,legislators and business leaders (Monsanto) are (again) working to ramrod Kansas House Bill 2295 (HB 2295) through into law.

As of today,this action is not completed in the Kansas House,and your voice counts! Keep your letters and messages coming!

NOTE:IT IS IMPORTANT to customize your letters and e-mail messages to your representatives,whenever possible. Otherwise,your input is lumped together with all who sent in the same form “letter.”

Current online write-in campaigns include:

Food &Water Watch

http://action.foodandwaterwatch.org/t/741/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26762

Consumers Union,too,has an automated letter to Kansas that is an easy way to submit opposition to the bill,direct all your family and friends to this link:
https://secure.consumersunion.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2051

True Food Now! / True Food Network

http://ga3.org/campaign/KSrBGH2

===

Battle over rBGH-free labeling continues in US states

In a setback to Monsanto and supporters of its genetically engineered bovine growth hormone,rBGH,Pennsylvania and Indiana refused to pass laws prohibiting dairy manufacturers from labeling their products rBGH-free,while Ohio has put restrictions on such labeling. Meanwhile,Kansas recently introduced a bill banning the labels.

Ohio restricts rBGH-free labels

In February,Pennsylvania rescinded a controversial law banning rBGH-free labels following a massive backlash from dairy companies and consumer advocates.

Also in February,Ohio passed a law that allows labels on dairy products if they are production-related claims,but prohibits compositional claims. The terms rBGH-free or rbST-free,which are compositional claims,are prohibited. A press release issued by the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) said the agency would approve labels if a production-related claim that the milk is derived “from cows not supplemented with rbST” is verifiable.

The claim must also include the FDA-approved disclaimer stating,“no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-supplemented and non-rbST-supplemented cows.”

Rick North,project director,Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility,says ODA’s restriction to a production-related claim goes too far. “Their reasoning is that any label claim not verified by a lab test is misleading,” he says. “What about label claims stating country or state of origin,organic,or even whiskey that’s aged a certain amount of years? These aren’t verified by a lab test. Are they misleading?”

Indiana bill stopped

In Indiana,state representative William Friend introduced House Bill 1300 in January,another bill that would have banned rBGH-free labeling in the state.
In an interview with InjuryBoard.com,Rep. Friend said he introduced the bill based on input from dairy farmers in his district who wanted to continue using the hormone.

rBGH is injected into cows to increase milk production. While approved by the FDA,the hormone is banned in Canada and the European Union because of health risks to cows. Consumer advocates also say rBGH increases levels of IGF-1,a hormone that’s been linked to prostate and colon cancer.

After the bill was introduced,consumer advocates delivered a petition with more than 70 organizations and businesses expressing opposition to the bill.

The bill passed the House Agriculture Committee 10-0,but Friend declined to bring it to the House floor for a vote because he didn’t have the votes to pass it.

North says the bill may not be completely dead. “We’re keeping an eye on the bill;it could reappear.”

Kansas SB 595

In Kansas,another bill to limit consumer awareness of rBGH,Senate Bill 595,was introduced into the state’s legislature in mid-February. Like similar state bills,SB 595 considers any “compositional claim that cannot be confirmed through laboratory analysis” to be misleading.

Language in all the bills is very similar. For example,the Indiana bill states that a label is misleading if it contains “a compositional claim that cannot be confirmed through laboratory analysis;or compositional or production-related claim that is supported solely by sworn statements,affidavits,or testimonials.” Language in the Kansas bill was nearly identical,word for word.

Monsanto behind efforts to ban rBGH-free labels

The similar language indicates a coordinated national effort to restrict rBGH-free labeling. “There is no question that Monsanto is behind these efforts,” says North.

Last year,Monsanto asked the FDA and Federal Trade Commission to crack down on the labels;the agencies refused so the biotech giant decided to push their agenda at the state level.

North says Monsanto paid expenses for Terry Etherton,Pennsylvania State University professor of animal nutrition,so he could travel to speak to farmers and encourage them to support the bills.

In addition,a public relations firm that works for Monsanto is behind a new organization,American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology (AFACT). AFACT’s website was registered to Susan Williams of Osborn &Barr Communications,a brand management company whose clients include Monsanto.

Copyright The Organic &Non-GMO Report March 2008.
===

FTC OK’s rBGH-free Milk Ads

WASHINGTON -The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has refused to take action against dairy companies that advertise

their milk products as “free of genetically engineered hormones.” Federal regulators said that ads they reviewed made no misleading claims about recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH),which is injected into cows to boost milk production.

Monsanto Co. had asked the FTC to investigate more than half a dozen companies that advertise their products as “rBGH free.” The St. Louis-based agri-business giant markets the hormone under the brand name Posilac. Monsanto’s request was based on its assertion that the ads mislead the public into thinking that milk from rBGH-free cows is safer and/or healthier than comparable products from cows that have been treated with the hormone.

Due primarily to concerns that it leaves cows more prone to illness,the GE hormone has been banned in Europe and Canada. Although it is still FDA-approved in the US,many dairy farmers refuse to use it because of possible safety risks. A growing number of retailers,including the Safeway and Kroger grocery chains,have switched to rGBH-free milk. The national milk brand Borden advertises that it works “exclusively” with rBGH-free suppliers,and asks its customers,“So,who do you trust when it comes to your family’s milk?”

Spokesman Charles Margulis of the non-profit Center for Food Safety says that “Monsanto is getting desperate” because “more and more companies are rejecting this drug and letting consumers know it.”

Source:Associated Press

===

On Wed,Mar 4,2009 at 5:09 PM,Dan Kerschen <[email protected]> wrote:

Please allow me to give you some background information so that perhaps
you can see my concern for dairy families interests in HB 2295. I have
been a dairy farmer for 45 years. The year I started grade school is the
year I began working on our family’s farm. My brothers and I went
into the business for ourselves in 1974. Our family milked between 75
and 200 cows twice a day. During that time we never used rBST,
although many of our neighbors did.
This technology is a management tool that every producer has the choice
to implement on his/her farm. They must decide if they want to pursue
the extra care and management needed to gain the benefits of the
product. I must admit that those who successfully use this product have
gained an efficiency that has continued over the past 16 years,when it
was first approved by the FDA.
I know of no dairy farmer who would use a product that was not declared
safe by the FDA. Milk is one of the most regulated products in the food
business. Every sample that leaves the farm is tested for a number of
quality conditions which include,bacteria,somatic cell,antibiotics,
etc. BST is naturally found in milk samples,whether a producer is
using the product or not. That is why a producer must sign an affidavit
which states he is not using the product.
The costs to segregate milk supplies is paid by the producers . On the
average,the producer receives about 5 cents a gallon for this effort.
The retailer collects between 50 cents to $1.00 for the same product.
Now some retailers are proclaiming their milk is “antibiotic “ free
when all milk by law must be antibiotic free. This is about selective
marketing,to influence consumers to assume that other products are less
desirable because of the label.
We want consumers to know what is in their food. We support accurate
labeling. I have 5 children myself and a grandson and would never allow
them to consume a product that is harmful to them. By the way,I have
never taken a cent from Monsanto and have often been critical of their
handling of the product rBST. I hope we can reach a mutual
understanding that protects consumers,dairy producers and their product
manufacturers so interstate commerce can continue as it should.
Thank you,best regards
Rep Dan Kerschen

MY REPLY:

Thanks for the feedback,Dan.

You do not say why your farm never used rBST/rBGH. You do not say whether your own dairy ever started using rBST/rBGH after you stopped working there.

How long do the cows live,on average,in dairies where rBST/rBGH,this wonderful “management tool”you speak of,is used to increase milk production? If such a hormone treatment were available,would you recommend it for under-producing nursing human mothers,the better to feed their infants?

Many things are declared safe by the FDA -by no means are they all proved safe,and we eaters sometimes pay the price (in the long run) in health care dollars while proving what proper research might have found *before* such products are rushed to market. When we have an incorruptible FDA which does not act as a rubber-stamp for “superior products”from big corporations,we’ll all sleep better and live better lives.

You say “This is about selective marketing,to influence consumers to assume that other products are less desirable because of the label.”No,this is about consumer awareness,and waking people up to the naturally occurring “downside(s)”of factory farm operations and methods for overproduction of foods. If the labels change to “This milk was produced without the use of rBST/rBGH,prophylactic antibiotics or GE/GMO feed products”that will be fine by me -I’ll know that those cows are in good hands,that the milk production methods used in that dairy are much less likely to cause harm (to the cow,to the environment,to me),thus minimizing the true cost of that milk in the long run.

You say “I have 5 children myself and a grandson and would never allow them to consume a product that is harmful to them.”but you do not say whether you (your siblings,parents or relatives) have ever recommend(ed) or touted the superiority of milk produced without rBST/rBGH to your children or grandchildren (or their mothers),around the dinner table,perhaps,after a hard day’s work on your non-rBST/rBGH-infused dairy operation.

We’d very much like to read your criticisms of Monsanto (and others) for their handling of rBST/rBGH and anything you might have written regarding the stringency or reliability of the milk,food and animal testing you (do and do not) refer to in your “background information.”

Sincerely,

Dave Lawrence
WebMinion -Kansas City Food Circle

===

http://www.organicconsumers.org/rBGH/MNdairyplant.cfm

Consumers buying milk labeled rBGH free
must rely on the good will of dairies

By Tim King Tim King is a farmer,journalist,and community organizer from Clotho,MN.

St. Paul,Consumers buying milk labeled rBGH free must rely on the good will of dairies that are reluctant to speak publicly about their product and a Department of Agriculture that considers the issue secondary.

Minnesota’s dairy plant inspectors consider inspection for proper separation of rBGH free milk from milk potentially being treated with the artificial hormone as subordinate to their primary responsibilities even though the labeling of rBGH free milk is regulated by a 1994 Minnesota statute. In fact,there is no evidence in the Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s inspection files, for the state’s three largest dairies that produce rBGH free milk,that any inspection of rBGH packaging or bottling systems has been done for the years 2000 to 2002.

“It’s a marketing issue and it’s not really a food safety issue,”Shirley Bohm,Director of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s Dairy and Food Inspection Division,said in a phone interview. “The primary focus of all of our inspections are the food safety issues.”

Bohm does say that the Department’s inspectors do look at rBGH labeling issues when they conduct Grade A plant inspections even though their is no evidence of that in the Department’s files.

Although neither Bohm’s agency nor federal regulators consider rBGH,which is a synthetically manufactured hormone used to increase a cow’s milk production,a food safety issue many consumers do. They have reason to do so. When the Canadian government banned rBGH in 1998 Health Canada,the equivalent of the US Food and Drug Administration,said that rBGH may cause “sterility,infertility, birth defects,cancer,and immunological derangements”in humans. Since the release of the Health Canada report two studies,reported on in Science and The Lancet,have linked rBGH to an increased incidence in prostate and breast cancer.

As a result of these studies some American consumers have doubts about the safety of milk not labeled rBGH free.

“At this point,we have found no substantiation for the arguments by either pro or anti rBGH/rBST groups. However,the questions being asked by the consumer organizations about the methodology of the studies used by pro-rBGH/rBST groups and the potential risks associated with (rBGH) make a reasonable case for the need to conduct long-term studies on the consequences of ingesting milk containing rBGH/rBST. Currently,there are no long-term studies cited on the effects of rBGH/rBST,”writes the national chain store Whole Foods Market on their web page.

It was these doubts about the human,as well as animal,health that created the political climate that allowed the passing of an rBGH free labeling law by the 1994 Minnesota legislature. Once the law was passed dairies began packaging milk labeled rBGH free.

“Our company has built its reputation on a commitment to listen to our customers,”James Green,president of Marigold Foods,said in an April 27,1994 press release. “It became clear some of our consumers wanted a product backed by the farmers pledge that the milk is rBGH free.”

Today Marigold Foods continues to package an rBGH free milk called Kemps Select. Attempts to discuss Kemps Select with officials at Marigold Foods throughout the later part of July and most of August were unsuccessful. After numerous phone calls it was learned that only one person at Marigold Foods,Vice President Rachel Kyylo,can speak to the press. Phone calls and emails about rBGH free Select sent to Ms. Kyylo,and her assistant,were not responded to.

Four Minnesota dairies that sell rBGH free milk were repeatedly contacted by The Land. Only one small dairy,that packages only organic and rBGH free dairy products, was willing to talk to a reporter off the record. Carl Schroedor,Vice President of Schroedor Dairy,said he’d try and line up an interview about the company’s rBGH products. Than he stopped returning phone calls. Phone calls were placed to plant management of Dean Foods,Land O Lake’s milk bottler,and not returned. A commitment by a LOL spokesman to line up an interview with production people knowledgable about the firms rBGH products resulted in a last minute phone call and email from Lydia Botham,Director of LOL’s Corporate Communications:

“LAND O LAKES branded products are known for being fresh,high-quality,good tasting,and nutritious and for offering a range of refrigerated-case choices that respond to diverse consumer wishes. With that in mind,LAND O LAKES Original milk is certified to come from cows which have not been treated with bovine growth hormone (rBST/rBGH). The following measures are taken to meet state certification standards:* Producers supplying milk for this product must sign an affidavit guaranteeing they are not using bovine growth hormone;

* Separate,assigned trucks are used to haul the raw milk;

* The milk is assigned to specifically identified storage tanks at the processing facility;and

* LAND O LAKES Original milk is processed first &and only after a system clean-up,”Botham wrote in her email.

The retail milk business is highly competitive. At the heart of the Minnesota rBGH free labeling law is the issue of segregation. Milk,to be packaged as rBGH free, must be kept segregated from other milk from the cow to the carton. Segregation of milk is an industrial process. Although none of the companies indicated their segregation system is a trade secret,it could be considered one in the fiercely competitive retail milk market.

The Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s (MDA) low profile regarding the inspection of rBGH free milk segregation could be justified by two factors:The weakness of the Minnesota statute and the importance,and legal necessity,of inspecting all of the state’s Grade A milk plants thoroughly every ninety days.

The Minnesota statute that regulates rBGH free labeling actually requires nothing of the MDA. Manufactures are required to keep records of how they segregate rBGH free milk from other milk. And they are required to make those records available to MDA inspectors. Manufacturers are also required to obtain affidavits from farmers who they get rBGH free milk from. The affidavits require the farmer to certify that their cows are not treated with rBGH. The statute requires that the manufacturers keep those affidavits on file and make them available to MDA inspectors. The statute does not require the inspectors to review the segregation records or to inspect the segregation facilities. The MDA has no rules that require an inspection of the milk segregation records or facilities.

“The statute is very clear,”say Doug Engebretson,who supervises MDA’s dairy plant inspectors,“so it was not necessary to write rules.”

The regular Grade A plant inspections can last up to five days. They are complex and thorough. MDA’s Shirley Bohm says that inspectors do look at rBGH free records during the inspections. The absence of any indication of such an inspection in MDA’s files could indicate that there simply hasn’t been a problem with rBGH segregation at the three plants that The Land reviewed,Kemps, Land O Lakes,and Schroedor’s,in the last two and one half years. Inspectors are only required to write something up for the file if there is a problem. Dan Erickson,an inspector at the Kemps Minneapolis plant since at least 1994,said in a phone interview he had no memory of ever reporting a problem with rBGH segregation.

MDA’s lack of visible interest in rBGH free labeling appears at the farm also. All dairy farms producing Grade A milk must be inspected regularly by an MDA inspector. Vincent Scherber,a dairy farmer from the Rogers area,signed an affidavit in 1994 saying he wasn’t treating his cows with rBGH. From then until he retired in 1999 he supplied Kemps with rBGH free milk. His farm was inspected by MDA milk inspectors numerous times during that five year period. The inspectors never asked if he was using rBGH.

“I didn’t think it was part of their job,”he says.

According to Minnesota statute it’s not.

Kemps never asked him to renew his 1994 affidavit.

“I figured if I’d signed it once that was good enough,”Scherber says.

He’s right. The statute has no provision to renew the affidavits.

The National Farmer’s Organization, a collective marketing organization for farmers,does renew affidavits from time to time,according to Brad Rock of the NFO in Sauk Center.

“We do haul some loads of rBGH free milk to some of the bottlers,”Rock says. “When we do that,when we put a route together,we go out and get affidavits from the farmers saying their cows are rBGH free. On a route,even if our truck isn’t full,we don’t mix the rBGH free milk with other milk”

Rock says the small premium that bottlers pay doesn’t do much to recognize farmers who aren’t using rBGH. But he believes that consumers who purchase milk labeled rBGH free can feel confident about the label.

“I think rBGH use is more common than people say,”he says “but I’d be very surprised if any of the bottlers are putting rBGH milk into their rBGH free labeled product. They just have too much to lose.”

_____________________

===

Another activist wrote:

One point to note – Monsanto no longer owns Posilac. They sold it to Elanco,and division of Eli Lilly,in Oct. 2008. At this point,we don’t know how involved Elanco is in promoting these anti-labeling bills and regulations. They’re certainly keeping a lower profile than Monsanto did last year,but that doesn’t mean they’re not doing things behind the scenes.

I understand that but,well…SOMEBODY is paying those lobbyists and lawyers to force the legislation,telling us we don’t have a right to know what goes into our food or how it is produced. I have to believe that Monsanto is still into the game in a big way,even if they sold the process for/rights to manufacture rBST/rBGH (Posilac) to some other company…Big Factory Beef (including Factory Dairy) is still heavy into Big (Indu-Chem/GE/GMO) Corn and Soy,produced by Big (Indu-Chem) Farm which is still into Monsanto,hence Big Oil/Natural Gas,et al. Such potential for BIG corruption -following the money leads us to the same players,time and again.
.
Then there’s the inhumanity…Our beef &milk industries assault factory cows in so many ways:

cramped living spaces,up to their ankles in sewage most of the time
-the only time they get marginally clean is during the milking process or prior to slaughter
filthy air
no access to pasture
chopped tails
unnatural diets that don’t include enough of their natural food -grass &hay -makes them gassy &ill
hormones &daily feed additives to promote milk &beef production mess with their digestion
chronic mastitis and other diseases that naturally occur in such an environment
daily antibiotics (for factory beef) to fight off the diseases caused or exacerbated by crowding
stress and a shortened life-span due to hormonally-induced excess milk production
-beef is beef but Factory Farm Bossy is,on the average,worn out and converted to hamburger in two years*

We humans are assaulted by the animal abuse,the waste,the waste *materials* and products,the disease vectors,and the contaminants in our food supply that (due to under-testing) go undetected or unremarked until something REALLY BAD happens. It is sickening,and beneath us as humans.

* On a small, low-stress dairy farm where the cows are humanely and lovingly cared for,Bossy can live up to 14 years. (Source:RealMilk.com)

We need to embody a People’s Moratorium on the hormones -then we can stand on that victory and get busy on the other factors.

===

See also:
http://expatriateskitchen.blogspot.com/2009/03/rbgh-battle-still-on-in-some-states.html

===

February 20,2009

First Yoplait,Now Dannon . . .

Wow.

Less than a week after Yoplait announced it would be going rBGH-free,Dannon has indicated it will do the same. In response to our request last week to contact Dannon,they responded with a much different letter than what they’ve been sending over the past few years. Although they still toe the false FDA line that rBGH is safe,they are making their direction clear. Here are a few excerpts:

“The Dannon Company has been working towards its goal of using only milk (and all dairy ingredients) from cows not treated with rBST (recombinant bovine somatotropin),a synthetic hormone that has been approved and declared safe for use by the FDA. We are well on our way to accomplishing this goal.”

“Dannon intends that during the third quarter of 2009 its two largest plants will no longer use milk (or any dairy ingredients) from cows treated with rBST. The Company’s third plant will follow shortly thereafter.”

“Based on consumer preference,Dannon is also encouraging its suppliers to switch to milk sources that are ‘rBST-free,’to support the move by the entirety of the dairy market and not just yogurt.”

A big THANK YOU to Dannon for moving in the right direction. Unlike Yoplait,they were open enough to allow Rick North,project director,to make our presentation to them at their New York headquarters last summer. Also unlike Yoplait,however,there is still not a definite time commitment for when they will go rBGH-free. We plan to continue our post card campaign until there is confirmation of when they will stop.

————————————————————————————

**In the midst of all this good news,a note of caution. It’s easy to think that with more and more consumers wanting rBGH-free products,all companies will go rBGH-free on their own. Believe me,they won’t. Companies only go rBGH-free because we as consumers -put pressure on them to do so.

There are still plenty of yogurt companies still allowing rBGH. For instance,Safeway (in the Northwest) and Kroger (nationwide) have gone rBGH-free for fluid milk. Neither have gone rBGH-free for their yogurt or other dairy products. Check the label of almost any dairy item,and if it doesn’t indicate it’s organic or rBGH-free,chances are it isn’t. And although we’ve had major breakthroughs on milk and yogurt,the majority of cheese,ice cream and butter brands still allow rBGH.

So please don’t get complacent. The ONLY way this country will rid itself of this horrible hormone is by increasing our educational efforts and mobilizing the public,including ourselves,to take action.

————————————————————

American Cancer Society Changes its Stance

For the last nine months,we’ve been working with the American Cancer Society to change its statement on rBGH,which previously had said there were no problems with it. We sent them tons of information,including many scientific and government documents,held a conference call with them to discuss our differences,and followed up with constant e-mails and phone calls.

We are happy to report that ACE has moved from saying rBGH was ok to a neutral stance:“The American Cancer Society (ACS) has no formal position regarding rBGH.”

Obviously,this was not all that we had hoped for. We are disappointed that ACS did not take a stronger stance on the cancer issue. Where they see scientific evidence as too incomplete to take a strong stand,we firmly believe it is substantial enough to declare rBGH an unnecessary,unacceptable risk.

But there was significant movement. Their old statement implied there was no harm to animals. Their new one says “The available evidence documents adverse health effects from rBGH on cows.” Their old statement never mentioned increased antibiotic resistance. Their new one says:“The increased use of antibiotics to treat rBGH-induced mastitis does promote the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria,although the extent to which these are transmitted to humans is unclear.” And the new one cites Health Care Without Harm and that “The president of the American Medical Association has recommended that hospitals serve milk produced without the use of rBGH.”

The bottom line:No longer can rBGH apologists say the American Cancer Society supports rBGH.

Biotech Companies Stonewalling Independent Research

They really don’t want us to find out what’s going on with genetically modified (GM or GMO) crops,you know.

An article in today’s New York Times revealed that 26 scientists had submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that biotech companies like Monsanto,Syngenta and DuPont refused to allow their GM crops to be studied by independent scientists:

The statement said that “No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions.” The researchers,who are not even necessarily opposed to GM crops,“withheld their names because they feared being cut off from research by the companies.”

DuPont’s William Niebur said the reason for refusing independent research was because the GM crops were regulated by the government and that they had to “protect our relationship with governmental agencies.” Oh,please. Even the EPA wasn’t buying that,saying that “any other contractual restrictions were put in place by the companies.”

These scientists have very good reasons for keeping their names secret. If you do genetic plant research,there are few opportunities for funding outside the biotech companies,the government and universities. And as most of you know,the biotech companies pretty much control the government agencies that are supposed to be regulating them and most of university research funding. As one brave scientist that did reveal his name said,“People are afraid of being blacklisted.”

I don’t blame them a bit for flying under the radar and it makes me respect even more the scientists that have stated publicly their opposition to GMO’s. Their jobs are often on the line.

===

I want to recommend that those in Kansas take a look at an 18 minute video at
www.YourMilkOnDrugs.com

I created this not only for the general public,but also specifically to show to legislators considering this type of legislation. If they see it,and realize that it will be publicized extensively in their state,it provides a strong political motivation not to appear to be on the side of the bad guys described in the film. Even though this comes from out of state,I still think it can be very useful if introduced correctly. We have DVDs of this,or you can use the link.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Smith

Author

International bestseller Seeds of Deception and the new Genetic Roulette

Executive Director

Institute for Responsible Technology

www.responsibletechnology.org

www.seedsofdeception.com

+1.641.472.8338

Cell +1.561.951.7877

Your Milk on Drugs
The Dangers of rBGH in Dairy Products

Although banned in most other industrialized nations due to the health risks to humans and harm to the animals,Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST) is still injected into dairy cows in the US to increase milk-production.

So why was rBGH approved for use in the US? The approval of rBGH in our country is a story of fired whistleblowers,manipulated research,and a corporate takeover of the US Food and Drug Administration. US dairies responding to the health concerns of consumers by not injecting their herds,now battle with Monsanto for their right to label their milk as rBGH-free. For those familiar with the history of this controversial drug,and Monsanto,this is no surprise. Monsanto’s controversial past is plagued with toxic disasters,lawsuits and cover-ups.

Your Milk on Drugs -Just Say No!
Own this eye-opening documentary on the hazards of milk containing rBGH which includes footage from a news series prepared for a Florida Fox TV station canceled after they received a letter from Monsanto’s attorney threatening “dire consequences.

The Health Hazards in Milk from Cows injected with rBGH

Milk from rBGH-treated cows has much higher levels of IGF-1,a hormone considered to be a high risk factor for breast,prostate,colon,lung,and other cancers. IGF-1 levels in milk from treated cows with rBGH can be up to 10 times higher. Studies suggest that pre-menopausal women below 50 years old with high levels of IGF-1 are seven times more likely to develop breast cancer. Men are four times more likely to develop prostate cancer. IGF-1 is implicated in lung and colon cancer.

Milk from rBGH-treated cows with its heightened IGF-1 levels also likely increases the rate of fraternal twin births in humans. In the United States,the number of fraternal twins grew at twice the rate as that in the United Kingdom,where rBGH is banned.

Milk from cows injected with rBGH also has lowered nutritional value,increased antibiotics and more pus from infected udders. Cows given rBGH experience higher rates of mastitis,a painful udder infection. When treated with antibiotics that are also used for people,bacteria resistant to these antibiotics end up in the milk,air,soil and water,resulting in increased antibiotic resistance in humans,a major health problem.

Dairies Responding to Consumer Concerns are Running Away from rBGH

Within the US,many school systems have banned milk products from injected cows and dairies have refused to inject their cow with it. But a milk carton from Maine’s Oakhurst Dairy stating,“Our Farmers’ Pledge:No Artificial Growth Hormones” became the subject of controversy when on July 3,2003 the dairy was sued by Monsanto over their labels. Oakhurst eventually settled,agreeing to add a sentence saying that according to the FDA no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from [rBGH]-treated and non- treated cows. But it’s a statement that is not true. Both Monsanto and FDA scientists had acknowledged the increase of IGF-1 in milk from treated cows. Higher amounts of pus and antibiotic residues in the milk were noted are as well. This misleading addition to the label was written by the FDA’s deputy commissioner of policy,Michael Taylor,previously Monsanto’s outside attorney who,after running policy at the FDA,became vice president of Monsanto. Could this revolving door between Monsanto and the government regulators (i.e. the movement from positions as biotech leaders to government policymaker and back again) be the one of the reasons why the FDA isn’t protecting US consumers?

Monsanto and the FDA

In the late 1980s,one FDA scientist was fired after expressing concerns about possible health problems related to dairy products from rBGH-treated cows. Other like-minded FDA scientists at the FDA had been stripped of responsibilities or forced out. Remaining FDA whistle-blowers had to write an anonymous letter to Congress,complaining of fraud and conflict of interest at the agency. In 1998,six

Canadian government scientists testified before their Senate that they were being pressured by superiors to approve rBGH,even though they believed it was unsafe. They also testified that documents were stolen from a locked file cabinet and that Monsanto offered them a bribe of $1-2 million to approve the drug. Monsanto responded to the Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) story about the alleged bribe,claiming that the scientists misunderstood an offer for research money. (Eventually in 2005,Monsanto was fined for offering bribes to 140 Indonesians,as the company tried to gain approval for their genetically modified cotton.)

Monsanto tries to muzzle the media

In 1989,Monsanto’s PR firm created “the Dairy Coalition,” a group that included researchers funded by Monsanto,to pressure editors of the USA Today,Boston Globe,New York Times and others,to stop reporting on the health concerns about rBGH.

The potential link between rBGH and cancer was one of the topics revealed in a four-part news series set to air in February of 1997 by a Tampa-based Fox TV station. Just before the series was to air,however,Fox received threatening letters from Monsanto’s attorney,threatening “dire consequences for Fox News.” The show was postponed indefinitely. The reporters who had created the series later testified that they were offered hush money to leave the station and never speak about the story again. They declined. Jeffrey Smith details this fascinating story in his best selling book on the health hazards of GMOs,Seeds of Deception and his video Your Milk on Drugs -Just Say No!

Progress and New Battles

Over the past few years,several organizations have worked to raise awareness of the rBGH issue,such as the Campaign For Safe Food launched by the Oregon Chapter of the Physicians for Social Responsibility. Getting attention to the rBGH issue was slow at first,but by educating consumers about the health dangers associated with rBGH and producers making rBGH-free brands readily available,we have seen a widespread consumer demand for rBGH free dairy products. Within the last two years,Wal-Mart,Starbucks,Kroger,and about 40 of the 100 top dairies removed rBGH products as consumer concerns reached a tipping point on this issue.

Having failed to gain a complete ban on “rBGH-free”labeling from the FDA,Monsanto has now gone to the state level by claiming the labels are an “unfair restraint of trade”even with the FDA disclaimer. Also,in an effort to turn public opinion their way,Monsanto has been trying to promote rBGH as having a positive effect on the environment. Of course their position is based on the “bad science” that they have perfected. The reality is that rBGH is anything but green.

The Next Big Consumer Tidal Wave Will be the Complete Rejection of Remaining
GMOs in Food Products,and You Can be a Part of It

The market rejection of rBGH demonstrates that consumers are still at the top of the food chain,dictating the direction of this fight. We expect to see the same tipping point kick GM foods out of the US food supply. Almost 87 million consumers in the United States believe that all GM foods aren’t safe,but can’t always avoid them because they don’t know how. By directing the purchasing power of the tens of millions of health-conscious shoppers,we can reach a new tipping point and push GMOs out of the entire food supply.

Here are a couple of things you can do to help. First,download this state-by-state guide to rBGH free dairy products and share them with friends. Then,sign on to participate in The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America and you will join the swell that is rising out of the natural food aisles and building into tidal wave of GMO rejection throughout the entire food industry. Adding your name to the Campaign’s growing list of supporters not only addresses you and your family’s health concerns,but also influences the decisions of food manufacturers,distributors,and retailers nationwide.

Finally,we invite you to have house party showings of the new film,The World According to Monsanto,which is a part of a packaged two DVD set that includes Your Milk on Drugs-Just Say No! The World According to Monsanto,takes a hard look at Monsanto’s campaign of deception and use of coercive tactics to gain market supremacy. A showing of these two films together is sure to motivate every viewer to take steps to stop GMOs.

===

rbGH

>>>Other Hormones

For over 10 years,rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone),also known as rBST (recombinant bovine somatotropin),has been a staple in the dairy products consumed by Americans. Since these products are not labeled as containing rBGH / rBST,most consumers have no idea that a growth hormone intended to induce dairy cows to be more productive is in much of their milk,cheese,and yogurt.

After approving the use of rBGH in 1993,the Food and Drug Administration has turned a deaf ear to the pleas of consumers,food safety organizations and scientists to reverse its approval of the hormone,or to simply require labeling of foods containing rBGH. Even a legal challenge by CFS could not force FDA to reexamine the health threats of rBGH. The FDA’s decision stood despite regulatory bodies in both Canada and Europe rejecting the hormone due to numerous animal and human health concerns.In cows treated with rBGH,significant health problems often develop,including a 50 percent increase in the risk of lameness (leg and hoof problems),over a 25 percent increase in the frequency of udder infections (mastitis),and serious animal reproductive problems,i.e.,infertility,cystic ovaries,fetal loss and birth defects.

Because rBGH use results in more cases of mastitis,dairy farmers tend to use more antibiotics to combat the infections,the residues of which also may end up in milk and dairy products. These residues can cause allergic reactions in sensitive individuals and contribute to the growth of antibiotic resistant bacteria,further undermining the efficacy of some antibiotics in fighting human infections.

Furthermore,recent research has shown conclusively that the levels of a hormone called “insulin-like growth factor-1″ (IFG-1) are elevated in dairy products produced from cows treated with rBGH.

Canadian and European regulators have found that the FDA completely failed to consider a study that showed how the increased IGF-1 in rBGH milk could survive digestion and make its way into the intestines and blood stream of consumers. These findings are significant because numerous studies now demonstrate that IGF-1 is an important factor in the growth of cancers of the breast,prostate and colon.

CFS seeks to force the FDA to remove rBGH / rBST from the market through all available legal means. In 1999,CFS,joined by a number of other organizations,filed a legal petition with the FDA requesting that it remove from the market Monsanto’s rBGH / rBST (trade name Posilac). In late 2000,the FDA announced that it was denying that petition. CFS will continue applying legal pressure on this important food safety issue.

View a List of rbGH-Free Dairy Products

View Other Resources on rbGH

2 Responses to “rbGH”

galendulac,on December 29th,2008 at 6:00 pm Said:
I have now been getting all of our milk from Oberweis dairy. While I believe it is only available in the US midwest,they do not use rGBH,and do not allow cloned animals. Their products are not labelled organic only because the cows are not given organic feed.
Heather,on December 29th,2008 at 6:14 pm Said:
Thank you for your comment. Oberweis has informed us that they are rbgh-free,and completed our recent survey on cloning stating they will not use milk from clones or the offspring of clones. Yay! For folks outside of the midwest looking for rbgh-free dairy products,Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility has a good list,and other information here:http://www.psr.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Oregon_rBGHFactSheetsandDownloads. The list is a bit West Coast heavy (they are in Oregon,after all),but many of the brands are national. If you don’t see your local rbgh-free dairy products on the list,let us know what you purchase so we can improve it!

===

Bovine Growth Hormone

We Won! Thanks to pressure from consumers like you,Starbucks has committed to serving only 100% hormone-free milk in all of its U.S. stores by December 31,2007. Find out more about this historic victory!

dairy cow

Throughout the Midwest and West,there has been an explosion in large dairy operations over the last decade. They are associated with numerous environmental and health hazards,including air pollution. California state regulators have named dairy cows as the leading air pollution culprit in the San Joaquin Valley-home to 2.5 million dairy cows. As a result of having some of the worst air quality in the nation,16 percent of children in the region have asthma,three times the national average.

“…studies suggest that rBGH is linked to increased cancer risk”

At many of these factory farms,in an attempt to increase the profitability,recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) is used to make the cow produce more milk. This hormone causes health problems in cows and increases antibiotic use on dairies. While the effect on humans consuming rBGH milk is not clear,studies suggest that rBGH is linked to increased cancer risk.

Many consumers have balked at the widespread use of hormones and antibiotics at giant dairies and opt for purchasing organic and sustainably produced milk. We want to educate consumers about rBGH and encourage them to find rBGH-free dairy products.

We also ask you to join us in fighting against the sale of dairy products from cloned cows and their offspring,as the vast majority of consumers oppose the practice. Together,as consumers and as citizens,we can change the policies that encourage the growth of large dairy factory farms.

Take Action – ask for rBGH-free milk in schools.

Got questions? Check out our dairy FAQ.

Learn More

Fact Sheets

rBGH:Anything but Green
rBGH:What the Research Shows
Got Pollution?
Say No to rBGH!
Got Milk? Got Artificial Hormones? Why Your Campus Should Be rBGH-Free

more…

===

Press Releases

DAIRIES,CONSUMER AND ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS URGE KANSAS TO NOT BAN LABELING OF ARTIFICIAL GROWTH HORMONE IN MILK

Contacts: Naomi Starkman,Consumers Union,917.539.3924;John Bianchi,Goodman Media,212.576.2700

New Poll Shows 93 Percent of Consumers Believe Dairies Should Be Able to Label Products as “rbGH-Free”

(December 2,2008) -Today,94 dairy farmers;consumer,farm and agricultural groups;public health,animal protection and environmental organizations;food processors;and retailers wrote to Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius to urge the state not to prohibit farmers from labeling their dairy products as “artificial growth hormone free.”Recently,similar attempts in several other states to ban such labels have been dismissed or rejected. Copies of the letter can be found here:http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/sebeliusletterdec2008.pdf and http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/foodsafety/sebelius

Today at 10 a.m.,the Kansas Department of Agriculture will hold a public hearing in Topeka to discuss its proposed rule to ban labels such as “rbGH-free,”“rbST free,”or “no artificial growth hormones,”on dairy products. rbGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone,also referred to as recombinant bovine somatotropin,or rbST) is a genetically engineered animal drug that some farmers inject into dairy cows to increase milk production. The proposal goes beyond U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance which permits labels such as ìno artificial growth hormones.

While proponents maintain that the labeling ban would protect consumers from misleading information,the signers of the letter believe that the proposed rule would inhibit farmersí right to free speech,keep consumers from learning how their food is produced,and create barriers to the free flow of products in interstate commerce. The group also objects to making a disclaimer not required by the FDA-”No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBST-treated and non-rBST-treated cows”-mandatory;a move that the Kansas Department of Agriculture has discussed implementing.

A recent Consumers Union Poll revealed that 93 percent of consumers agree that dairies that produce milk and milk products without artificial growth hormones should be allowed to label their products as being free of these hormones. In addition,57 percent of Americans are willing to pay more for milk and milk products produced without artificial growth hormones.

“The proposed rule,which could undermine consumers’rights as well as prevent free-enterprise,is an insult to both the citizens and dairy producers of Kansas,”said Donn Teske,President of the Kansas Farmers Union. “If it passes,it could set the stage for further banning of labels,making it impossible to inform buyers about beneficial processes behind other food products like ‘pasture poultry’or ‘grass-fed beef.’”

“Because little testing has been done,we just don’t know what the long-term health impacts of rBST might be,”said Andrew Kimbrell,Executive Director of the Washington,D.C.-based Center for Food Safety. “Until consumer health can be assured,we urge Governor Sebelius to consider Kansans’right to know how their milk is produced.”

“Since the FDA’s controversial decision to approve the use of rbGH,questions have only grown about its safety for humans,”said Dr. Michael Hansen,Senior Scientist for Food Safety for Consumers Union;senders of a similar letter to the Governor and the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports. “Consumers should have the ability to buy milk from untreated cows if they want to.”

“Kansas consumers are entitled to more information about the food they buy-not less-and farmers should be allowed to provide that,”said Laura Fortmeyer,a Kansas livestock farmer and board member of the Kansas Rural Center. “If dairy farmers are willing to provide the rbGH-free milk that many consumers seek,Kansas officials should not stand in the way.”

“This is,fundamentally,a consumer right-to-know issue,”said Craig Volland,Agriculture Chair of the Kansas Chapter,Sierra Club. “Product labeling is one of the few ways consumers can exercise freedom of choice when it comes to food production,and they must be given all the necessary information to make informed decisions.”

The following organizations have signed onto the letter:

American Agriculture Movement;American Corn Growers Association;Aurora Organic Dairy;Beyond Pesticides;BioVision2020;Bon Appetit Management Co.;Boulder Ice Cream;Breast Cancer Action;Campaign for Safe Food;Campaign for Safe Food,Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility;Center for Corporate Policy;Center for Environmental Health;Center for Food Safety;Center for Media and Democracy;Center for Rural Affairs,Lyons,Nebraska;Citizens for Health;Clintonville Farmers Market;Community Farm Alliance,Kentucky;Community Food Initiatives;Consumer Federation of America;Cornucopia Institute;Countryside Conservancy;Edmonds Institute;Endangered Habitats League Los Angeles;Environmentally Concerned Citizens of Randolph County Indiana;Family Farm Defenders;Farm Animal Welfare,Humane Society of the United States;Farm Sanctuary;Farmer-to-farmer Campaign on Genetic Engineering;Florida Organic Growers and Consumers;Food &Water Watch;Georgia Organics;Good Earth Natural Foods,Fairfax,CA;Horizon Dairy;Humane Farming Association;Illinois Stewardship Alliance;Indiana Campaign for Family Farmers;Indiana Farmers Union;Innovative Farmers of Ohio;Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy;Institute for Justice;Institute for Responsible Technology;JaKo,Inc.;Kansas City Food Circle;Kansas Farmers Union;Kansas Rural Center;Kirschenmann Family Farms Medina,North Dakota;Local Matters;Mississippi Livestock Markets Association;MOON Cooperative Services;National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture;National Family Farm Coalition;National Farmers Union;Natural Resources Defense Council;Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance;Northeast Organic Farming Association (VT,NH,MA,CT,NY,NJ,and RI);Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society;Northwood Farms,Wonewoc,WI;Ohio Citizen Action;Ohio Ecological Food and Farming Association;Ohio Environmental Council;Ohio Farmers Union;Oneota Community Co-op,Decorah,Iowa;Oregon Ice Cream Company;Organic Consumers Association;Organic Crop Improvement Association,Kansas #2;Organic Farming Research Foundation;Organic Trade Association;Peacework Farm;Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture;Protect Our Woods,Indiana;Radiance Dairy Fairfield,Iowa;Reclaim Democracy;Rodale Institute;Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA;Science and Environmental Health Network;Sierra Club;Sierra Club Kansas Chapter;Stonyfield Farm,Inc.;Straus Family Creamery Marshall,CA;Sustainable Agriculture Coalition;Sustainable Earth,Indiana;The Campaign;Union of Concerned Scientists;Western Sustainable Agriculture Working Group,Victor,MT;White Dog Community Enterprises,Philadelphia,PA;Whole Foods Market,Emeryville,CA;Willow Creek Farm Belmont,New York;Wright Way Dairy,Hermon,New York

The Center for Food Safety is national,non-profit,membership organization founded in 1997 to protect human health and the environment by curbing the use of harmful food production technologies and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture. On the web at:http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org

Privacy Statement • Site Map • Contact Us

The Center for Food Safety
660 Pennsylvania Ave,SE,#302
Washington DC 20003
P:(202)547-9359,F:(202)547-9429
[email protected]

===

From:the ethicurean -http://www.ethicurean.com/2008/02/20/open-letter-to-monsanto/

An open letter to Monsanto

by Ali @ 6:00 am on 20 February 2008.

Oh,Monsanto.

Just look at you. You’ve got your knit cap pulled down tight over your crew cut,and your stomach is sticking out beneath your skull-and-crossbones T-shirt. Your face is riddled with acne,and your eyes are all hard and mean. You’ve been left back a few grades now — summer school doesn’t always help much,does it? — and so now you are way bigger than everyone else.

You don’t have too many friends anymore. It’s tough to be the class behemoth,isn’t it? So you’ve taken to pushing other kids around on the playground and trying to take their milk money.

Or,at least,to take away their ability to label their milk as rBGH-free. Makes you feel bad when they label things that way,like they know you’ve got cooties or something. Plus you lose money then,and you don’t like losing money. It makes you feel … small,somehow.

So you do what all oversized bullies do to keep themselves from feeling small:you push. You push all the kids you think you can get away with pushing.

Like Pennsylvania. You expected Pennsylvania would be a pushover,didn’t you? You thought it would be all fat,happy children at Hershey Park. Maybe a few old-order Mennonites. A handful of people downing cheese steaks and Mike and Ikes. I mean,I kind of understand what you were thinking. Pennsylvania is the home of Alice from the Brady Bunch and the “Time in a Bottle”crooner guy and Mr. Rogers and that geeky doctor from “Jurassic Park.”But you didn’t bother to think about other folks who hail from Pennsylvania,like Joan Jett and Charles Bronson and Larry Holmes (Monsanto,dude,he beat Muhammad Ali and a guy whose nickname was “Bonecrusher”!). And,um,the Battle of Gettysburg? Pennsylvanians are tough,Monsanto. They’re tough enough to fight back. And they did. They turned around and kicked your @*s good. Pennsylvania dairies got to keep their rBGH-free labels. That must have made you feel very small.

So then you did the next logical thing. You found some other kids on the playground that you thought you could kick around. Like New Jersey. That one surprised me,Monsanto. I mean,Tony Soprano? Hel-LO? And did you see Ray Liotta in “Goodfellas”? And what about the vice president who killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel? Not smart,picking on New Jersey. They’ve always been tough in Jersey. They crushed you. The Garden State can keep its labels,too.

Next you turned to a state that you think would be a reeeaally easy target:Indiana. But you never saw that movie,did you? The one where the Town Drunk and the Coach With A Checkered Past lead a bunch of earnest farmboys to the state basketball championships? And then,when the final game is tied at 40,Coach Dale calls a timeout and designs a play for Merle to take the last shot,but the players refuse to leave the huddle until Jimmy finally says,“I’ll make it”and then Coach Dale then redraws the play for Jimmy to take the last shot,which is what the team wanted all along? And then Jimmy makes it,he makes that last shot,and everyone cheers,including Shooter,who jumps up and down on his hospital bed? Didn’t you SEE that movie,Monsanto? The folks in Indiana have heart.

They may be underdogs,but they are underdogs who know how to win.

Anyhow,they beat you,too. Indiana can say what it wants on its milk labels.

You’re still battling it out in Ohio,it’s true. But you’re facing nurses standing up and saying Hell,no! We won’t go! We won’t lay down for Mon-san-to! Or something to that effect,anyway. And even the Consumer Reports folks are saying the same. And if that’s not enough,I’ve got two words for you:Marilyn Manson.

So now you’re pickin’ on Kansas. You were imagining Dorothy,probably — wide-eyed,apple-cheeked,easy to knock over in a fight. But you must not have studied much history in summer school,Monsanto. Because if you had,you’d know all about Bloody Kansas and everything that came after that nasty little brouhaha,and you would know enough NOT TO PICK A FIGHT IN KANSAS.

So,here’s my question for you,Monsanto. It’s a question that all bullies must ask,eventually,after one too many times of kicking sand in other people’s face only to discover that it just isn’t a good life strategy:How much is too much? Do you know when to say when?

When will you decide you’ve gotten enough black eyes?

I’m going to be frank,Monsanto. You may own a pair of brass knuckles,but I’ve faced my share of playground scuffles,and I have even beat up boys. So I’m going to speak bluntly to you:It’s not working. You keep picking on these kids,and Monsanto,pal,you’re losing. You’re LOSING. They don’t want what you’re peddling. They just don’t want it,and your efforts to shove it down their throats,to hit them so hard that they won’t even know what kind of milk they’re buying,just aren’t working. They are stronger than you anticipated. Or maybe — just maybe — you are a little weaker.

I recommend a little therapy. No shame there. Do a little digging on the therapist’s couch,figure out where all that anger comes from. Because I’m thinking that perhaps it’s not the other kids on the playground that you’re angry at. Maybe you’re mad at you. Yes,you.

Could it be possible you even hate yourself a tiny little bit?

I understand — you don’t have a great model for love. You’ve got those shareholders,and they are always raggin’ on you. No matter how hard you strive for their approval,it’s never good enough for them. Record-smashing profits,120% sales growth in just 7 years,and still — still! — they are saying,it’s not enough. It will never be enough. They want growth. More growth. Endless growth. Growth every quarter — every damned quarter! And you’re right,Monsanto:that’s not real love.

All of your old allies have left you behind. Starbucks,Krogers,Publix,Safeway,Dean Foods,Chipotle Mexican Grill…and now Kraft,too…they just don’t want to be associated with you any more. Just like all those kids on the playground.

But Monsanto? If you have to bully people into being your friend? That’s not friendship. That’s not real love.

Remember the serenity prayer? Because that’s what you need. You need to ask God to grant you the serenity to accept the things you cannot change (such as all of us consumers who want to know how our food is produced. You’re not going to change us. So sorry);the courage to change the things you can (you can change YOU,Monsanto. You can change YOU!);and the wisdom,always,to know the difference.

Godspeed,Monsanto. Godspeed.

Guest contributor Ali can be found at the Cleaner Plate Club. Her previous post for us was about teaching her kid to curse. If Matt Groening wants to sue someone over the illustration,Bonnie gets the blame.

File under Activism,Dairy,Labeling,Politics. PERMALINK Print this post

8 Responses to “An open letter to Monsanto”

ExPat Chef Says:
February 20th,2008 at 7:55 am It ain’t gonna happen in Kansas.
Laureen Says:
February 20th,2008 at 8:06 am Ali,you are a freakin’ genius. I love your writing,and I love how you take a topic that could induce polemic fits,and turn it into a source of accessible comedy.
It also helps that I already hated Monsanto. And that frankly,nothing you ever write will be as brilliant as your exploding pig heads piece back over on Cleaner Plate. =) =)
kitchenMage Says:
February 20th,2008 at 2:07 pm This is marvelous,Ali! I am with Lauren. Well,except that she didn’t provide a link to the most excellent exploding pig brain piece and made me google it. You’ll be happy to know that you are the #2 blog hit for “exploding pig heads” -something to tell the kids about. Especially nine year olds. They love stuff like that. but i digress…
Jack at Fork &Bottle Says:
February 20th,2008 at 10:45 pm This is like asking Darth Vader to be a good guy. Oh wait,that’s fantasy.
You have to keep wondering how the execs at Monsanto can look at themselves in the mirror each day,or face their children. Perhaps they have no children?
Another great post,Ali!
Tsila Says:
February 21st,2008 at 5:27 am It’s not often that a piece on Monsanto leaves me grinning from ear to ear! Thanks for that.
anita Says:
February 21st,2008 at 7:20 am this post has been picked up by a LiveJournal splogger:
http://mumbojumble.livejournal.com/friends/
You can address it here:
http://www.livejournal.com/abuse/report.bml
Jennifer Jeffrey Says:
February 21st,2008 at 11:52 am I am standing up and applauding. FABULOUS piece!
Going to email the link out now… everyone needs to read this.
Sally Parrott Ashbrooks Says:
February 22nd,2008 at 11:21 am Great piece. Love the blog!

====

Please write the Governor of Kansas to stop unnecessary and punitive rules on GMO-free milk! The Kansas Department of Agriculture (KDA) is proposing to ban milk that carries such labels as “rBGH-free,”“rBST-free”or “no artificial hormones.” Milk with such labels is becoming increasing popular with consumers. Since rBST cannot be present in milk from a cow unless it has been injected with the genetically engineered growth hormone,the KDA’s proposed rule bans a true statement,and interferes with a consumers’right to know what’s in their food.
Please click the link below to send a letter to the Governor.
http://action.sierraclub.org/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=1181&autologin=true
Thank you for all that you do!

=====

Craig Volland

to Jeannie

Jeannie,thanks so much for your help on this. I am meeting with the Governor’s staff later today along with Don Teske,Pres. of the Kansas Farmers Union so I think we have their attention. Best regards,Craig Volland

On Nov 17,2008,at 9:31 AM,Jeannie and Dave McDermott wrote:

Hi Craig —I want to thank you for this information. I just happen to be on this mailing list,since I do some free-lance garden writing. I have sent letters to the gov,ag dept,and my state senator and representative. I also forwarded your email to some people and hopefully they will write too.
I had heard on NPR something about Monsanto engineering this across the country. That company is incredible!! There seems to be no end of their evilness,and …. isn’t it rather shocking that the state department of agriculture is bowing to them.
Again,thanks!
Jeannie McDermott

=====

### 2008-03-31

If our bulletin board article scrolls off your screen,click on this link:

Missouri rBGH Labeling Under Attack,AGAIN…

Please pass this on to your family and friends in Missouri…

Dairy Labeling -Missouri House Bill HB 2283 has hearing on 4-1-08

———- Forwarded message ———-
From:Burnetts Heritage Farms
Date:Sun,Mar 30,2008 at 10:24 PM
Subject:Dairy Labeling Bill HB2283 has hearing on 4-1-08
To:KC Food Circle Bulletin Board <[email protected]>

House Bill 2283 has been scheduled for a hearing with the Special Committee on Agri-Business for April 1,2008 at 8:00am in Hearing Room #4 of the State Capitol Building. This bill would be VERY detrimental to small dairy producers in the state who advertise their milk as hormone free,rBgh free or by other composition standards. It would prevent consumers from knowing what is used to produce their milk.

This bill must be stopped! Opponents to this bill should be at the hearing,if they at all can. Those who would like to testify in person or through written submission should contact the Committee Chair. All opponents to this bill should contact the Committee Members and express their views on this very destructive bill. At this late date,phone calls are best,but emails are still very effective.

The Committee Contact information is below,with the exact wording of the changes the bill would make to the current dairy labeling laws in Missouri.

###

196.075. 1. A food shall be deemed to be misbranded:…
(12) For all dairy products except those produced through organic farming as defined by rules promulgated under section 261.110,RSMo:
(a) A compositional claim that cannot be confirmed through laboratory analysis;or
(b) A compositional or production-related claim that is supported solely by sworn statements,affidavits,or testimonials;or
(c) If the label contains a statement which is false or misleading;or
(d) If the label contains the following production statement:“this milk is from cows not supplemented with rbST”,or a substantially equivalent claim;or
(e) If the label makes any claims regarding the composition of milk,as opposed to the manner in which milk is produced,such as “No Hormone”,“Hormone Free”,“rbST Free”,“rbGH Free”,and “bST Free”. The department of agriculture shall not permit such statements on any dairy product labels;or
(f) A statement may be considered false and misleading if it indicates the absence of a compound not permitted by the United States Food and Drug Administration to be present in any dairy product.

###

Special Committee on Agri-Business Members:

Munzlinger,Brian,Chair 573-751-7985 [email protected]

Fisher,Barney Joe,Vice Chair 573-751-5388 [email protected]

Aull,Joe 573-751-2204 [email protected]

Guest,Jim 573-751-0246 [email protected]

Hobbs,Steve 573-751-9458 [email protected]

Kelly,Van 573-751-2205 [email protected]

Rucker,Martin T. 573-751-9460 [email protected]

Swinger,Terry 573-751-2264 [email protected]

Thomson,Mike 573-751-9465 [email protected]

Todd,Tom 573-751-4095 [email protected]

-~-~———~-~—-~—-

Please review our KCFC Copyright and Fair Use Policies page before reposting articles protected by copyright. As a rule,you should always cite your sources.

###

You received this forwarded message because someone who cares is subscribed to the Google Group “KC Food Circle Bulletin Board”

To post to this group,send email to [email protected]

For more options,visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/KCFC-Bulletin-Board?hl=en
-~———-~—-~—-~—-~——~—-~——~-~—

Missouri Residents,see also:
http://ga3.org/campaign/MO_rBGH
for their current write-in campaign
and / or
The Food and Water Watch write-in campaign

and

Ralph Tomlinson thought you would be
interested in the following article from
www.globeandmail.com,
Canada’s leading source for online news:

“Wal-Mart move ‘tipping point’for non-hormone milk“

Organic food proponents will remember Thursday as the day the ground shifted.Giant food retailer Wal-Mart Stores Inc. announced that its store brand milk in the United States will now come exclusively from cows not treated with artificial growth hormones.

Note from Ralph Tomlinson:
Walmart has slapped down Monsanto.

###

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080322.RMILK22/EmailTPStory/Business

RETAIL:FOOD

Wal-Mart move ‘tipping point’for non-hormone milk

JANET MCFARLAND

March 22,2008

Organic food proponents will remember Thursday as the day the ground shifted.

Giant food retailer Wal-Mart Stores Inc. announced that its store brand milk in the United States will now come exclusively from cows not treated with artificial growth hormones.

The move sends a powerful signal to food manufacturers about the growing mainstream demand for health food products. With Wal-Mart already the largest retailer of organic milk in the U.S.,it has been clear that consumers interested in greener food products are no longer the narrow group of back-to-the-earth types and wealthy urban yuppies.

“It’s reached the tipping point,”said Ronnie Cummins,director of the Organic Consumers Association in the U.S.,who has spent years campaigning against the use of hormones designed to boost milk production by up to 15 per cent in dairy cows.

“Even Wal-Mart’s customers are demanding milk free from genetically engineered hormones.”

Similar demands are growing in Canada,with mainstream grocery retailers like Loblaw Cos. Ltd. introducing reams of new products to meet mainstream demands for organic and “green”foods. Canada,however,banned artificial growth hormones for dairy cows in 1998,so is not affected by the milk changes sweeping the United States.

“I think things are accelerating now and people are getting more health conscious and are getting more conscious about the connection between their personal health and the health of the environment,”Mr. Cummins said.

Grocery chain Kroger Co.,with 2,500 stores in the U.S.,began last month selling only milk produced without the use of hormones like recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST). Safeway Inc.,with more than 1,700 stores,has switched its in-store brands to non-rBST milk,though it also sells other brands produced from cows given the hormone. And starting in January,Starbucks Corp. has only used non-rBST milk in its stores.

As the largest grocery retailer in the United States with more than 4,000 locations,however,Wal-Mart was the “big get”for consumer advocates.

The retailer said Thursday that its change was prompted by consumer demands. “Many Wal-Mart customers have expressed a desire for milk choices,”the company’s release said. The change means Wal-Mart’s Great Value store brand milk will be rBST-free,as will milk offered at the company’s Sam’s Club warehouse locations.

“We’ve listened to customers and are pleased that our suppliers are helping us offer Great Value milk from cows that are not treated with rBST,”said Wal-Mart general merchandise manager Pam Kohn.

In the U.S.,non-rBST milk has become a cheaper alternative to milk that is fully organic. Mr. Cummins said it appeals to many consumers who want to avoid the hormones but are unwilling to pay the far larger premium for organic milk. “When you look at all the surveys of consumer attitudes about food safety,hormones consistently rank way up there,along with pesticides,”he said.

Most dairy farmers do not use the artificial hormones,which were first approved by the U.S. Drug Administration in 1993,so the impact on the industry from Wal-Mart’s announcement will be incremental rather than dramatic. Mr. Cummins said USDA statistics show 18 per cent of U.S. dairy cows were given artificial hormones in 2006.

David Darr,vice-president of public affairs for Dairy Farmers of America Inc.,a major U.S. producer of milk and dairy products,said yesterday that there is already a lot of non-rBST milk available.

“There are more dairy farms across the U.S. that don’t use it than do,”he said. “And the farms that did use the technology,they did not necessarily use it on every cow.”

His firm,a co-operative owned by 18,000 dairy farmers,has members who produce both kinds of milk.

“We continue to try to give our members a choice on what technology they use,and try to find markets for milk however they want to produce it,”he said. “But we are also cognizant and recognize the needs of our customers and try to give them what they want.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080322.RMILK22/EmailTPStory/Business

###

More background:
Recipe for America (on Food Labeling)

Posted by Kansas City Food Circle at 9:05 AM

0 comments

Labels:consumer right truth labeling monsanto missouri house bill hb health dairy rBGH product genetically engineered ge gmo letter campaign animal cruelty local food labelling

###

Truth in Labeling -NEXT!! -My Missouri Milk Makes Monsanto Mad

Protect the Rights of Farmers and Consumers

House Bill 2283 (Missouri),introduced by Rep. Mike Cunningham,would ban any type of labeling that enables consumers to know if their dairy products contain rBGH,a genetically engineered hormone that induces cows to produce more milk.

This bill is being pushed by Monsanto (the producer of rBGH) in many states,and Missouri is the next target.

This Bill is Anti-Farmer,Anti-Consumer and Anti-Business!

Farmers have the right to let consumers know what is in their food and how it is produced.

This is not only an issue of free speech for farmers,but also a corporate and government intrusion into the business relationship between farmer and consumer.

Tell Missouri Legislators to…

Vote NO on House Bill 2283!

Call Rep. Cunningham and all Co-Sponsors!

See Telephone Numbers Below

Also,Call Your Own Representative!

See All Representatives
and Senators Attached

Sponsor-Representative Mike Cunningham:(573) 751-3819

Co-Sponsors for HB 2283:

Rep. Shane Schoeller:573-751-2948

Rep. Tom Loehner:573-751-1344

Rep. Brian Munzlinger:573-751-7985

Rep. Tom Self:573-751-3971

Rep. John Quinn:573-751-2917

Rep. Jay Wasson:573-751-1503

Rep. Barney Joe Fisher:573-751-5388

Rep. Edward Robb:573-751-1471

Rep. David Day:573-751-1446

Rep. Darrell Pollock:573-751-4451

Rep. Larry Wilson:573-751-1167

Rep. Steve Hobbs:573-751-9458

Rep. Mike Dethrow:573-751-1066

Rep. Raymond ‘Ray’Weter:573-751-2565

Rep. Don Wells:573-751-1490

Rep. Danielle Moore:573-751-5226

Rep. Charles Schlottach:573-751-6668

Rep. Ward Franz:573-751-1455

Rep. Van Kelly:573-751-2205

Rep. Maynard Wallace:573-751-2042

Rep. Ron Richard:573-751-2173

Rep. Rodney Schad:573-751-2077

Rep. Bob May:573-751-5713

Rep. Therese Sander:573-751-6566

Rep. Ellen Brandom:573-751-5471

Rep. Michael Parson:573-751-1347

Rep. Jason Smith:573-751-1688

Rep. Sally Faith:573-751-1452

Rep. Jim Guest:573-751-0246

###
from www.MoRural.org

Labels:consumer right truth labeling monsanto missouri house bill hb 2283 health dairy rBGH product genetically engineered ge gmo letter campaign animal cruelty local food labelling

Version:

Latest 3 messages about this page (20 total) -view full discussion

May 4 2009 by DaveL

Milk (Labeling) in Kansas …UPDATE

Click on http://groups.google.com/group/KCFC-Bulletin-Board/web/my-missouri-milk-makes-monsanto-mad?hl=en
- or copy &paste it into your browser’s address bar if that doesn’t
work.

May 4 2009 by WebMinion -www. KCFoodCircle .org

Thanks to all of you,and your friends,all who are speaking out and making a difference in the world -this is not a total victory,but we seem to have re-won our rights (in Kansas,anyway,for the time being) to milk labeling based on consumer demand. Thank you,one and all. -Dave Lawrence -WebMinion

Apr 25 2009 by WebMinion -www. KCFoodCircle .org

The Associated Press posted this article yesterday afternoon. Comments from “Kansas lawmakers”notwithstanding,efforts to protect our rights to effective food labeling will not diminish. Please stand ready to work with us in the near future,to send a clear and persistent message to Monsanto,Lilly,and other corporations.

K.C. Food Circle

Monsanto Milk Marketing -Local Labeling Laws

Rick North has shared a Huffington Post article (October 2009):

10 Things the FDA Can Do to Improve Nutrition Labeling

Think Before You “PINK”

Kansas Milk Labeling Update -from Monday,May 11th,2009

Key Kan. lawmakers see veto of milk bill standing

Jeffrey Smith

FDA Promotes Unsafe Milk Due to Industry Pressure

Groups seek veto of milk labeling legislation

Sierra Club spokeswoman says bill not needed,infringes on the rights of consumers.

By Chris Green -Harris News Service -[email protected]

Battle over rBGH-free labeling continues in US states

Indiana bill stopped

FTC OK’s rBGH-free Milk Ads

Consumers buying milk labeled rBGH free
must rely on the good will of dairies

rbGH

View a List of rbGH-Free Dairy Products

2 Responses to “rbGH”

Bovine Growth Hormone

Learn More

Fact Sheets

From:the ethicurean -http://www.ethicurean.com/2008/02/20/open-letter-to-monsanto/

An open letter to Monsanto

8 Responses to “An open letter to Monsanto”

=====

Craig Volland

to Jeannie

Jeannie,thanks so much for your help on this. I am meeting with the Governor’s staff later today along with Don Teske,Pres. of the Kansas Farmers Union so I think we have their attention. Best regards,Craig Volland

On Nov 17,2008,at 9:31 AM,Jeannie and Dave McDermott wrote:

=====

### 2008-03-31

Missouri rBGH Labeling Under Attack,AGAIN…

Wal-Mart move ‘tipping point’for non-hormone milk

Truth in Labeling -NEXT!! -My Missouri Milk Makes Monsanto Mad

Blogroll

_______________________ KC Food Circle Domain Search

K.C. Food Circle

Monsanto Milk Marketing -Local Labeling Laws

Rick North has shared a Huffington Post article (October 2009):

10 Things the FDA Can Do to Improve Nutrition Labeling

Think Before You “PINK”

Kansas Milk Labeling Update -from Monday,May 11th,2009

Key Kan. lawmakers see veto of milk bill standing

Jeffrey Smith

FDA Promotes Unsafe Milk Due to Industry Pressure

Groups seek veto of milk labeling legislation

Sierra Club spokeswoman says bill not needed,infringes on the rights of consumers.

By Chris Green -Harris News Service -[email protected]

Battle over rBGH-free labeling continues in US states

Indiana bill stopped

FTC OK’s rBGH-free Milk Ads

Consumers buying milk labeled rBGH freemust rely on the good will of dairies

rbGH

View a List of rbGH-Free Dairy Products

2 Responses to “rbGH”

Bovine Growth Hormone

Learn More

Fact Sheets

From:the ethicurean -http://www.ethicurean.com/2008/02/20/open-letter-to-monsanto/

An open letter to Monsanto

8 Responses to “An open letter to Monsanto”

=====

Craig Volland

to Jeannie

Jeannie,thanks so much for your help on this. I am meeting with the Governor’s staff later today along with Don Teske,Pres. of the Kansas Farmers Union so I think we have their attention. Best regards,Craig Volland

On Nov 17,2008,at 9:31 AM,Jeannie and Dave McDermott wrote:

=====

### 2008-03-31

Missouri rBGH Labeling Under Attack,AGAIN…

Wal-Mart move ‘tipping point’for non-hormone milk

Truth in Labeling -NEXT!! -My Missouri Milk Makes Monsanto Mad

Blogroll

_______________________ KC Food Circle Domain Search

Consumers buying milk labeled rBGH free
must rely on the good will of dairies