PA prohibits labelling milk "hormone-free"
Here's the link: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_t...
Here's an excerpt:
"The state Agriculture Department has forbidden dairies that don't use the hormone from touting that fact on milk-bottle labels, contending it gives the impression that milk like [PA Dairy Farmer] Harnish's is unsafe.
[...
]After extensive study, and 14 years after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the hormone for use, there is indeed no proof that milk from injected cows is unsafe.
[...]
And critics say its effects on bovine health - including an increase in mastitis, an udder infection - are reason enough to ban it. That's a key reason it cannot be used on cows in Europe and Canada. At the very least, farmers should be allowed to say if they don't inject, said Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at the nonprofit Consumers Union. 'Consumers have a basic right to know what's in the foods they eat, and how they are produced,' Hansen said.
Yet Harnish, who farms 200 acres here in western Lancaster County, worries that some of his competitors' labels are misleading. A few have been downright inaccurate, making such claims as 'hormone-free.' ... Harnish said his herd is just as healthy as it was before he started using the synthetic version, made by St. Louis-based Monsanto. He says the product, called Posilac, is one of the success stories of American technology.
[...]
In an interview, state Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff said he ordered the changes after hearing repeatedly from people in the dairy industry. He once used the hormone on his own dairy farm, though his family got out of the business in 1999."
What do you think? Do you already buy milk without regard to hormone additives? Already choose organic? Already buy raw from a known dairy farmer? Will this affect your buying habits? Regardless of what you will do personally, what do you think about state government disallowing the statement that milk is IGF-1-free and/or rBST-free?
-
amyzan
Jan 31, 2008 09:32 AM
Milk is a complex issue, as with many foods. There are lots of considerations not covered by gov't stipulations on labeling, including organic and other terms. State and federal gov't have a history of acquiescing to the concerns of industry lobbyists, rather than serving citizens trying to make informed decisions in the market. I'm disappointed to hear that PA is caving on this one. I prefer to buy not only organic but also pastured, as milk from pastured cows has beneficial fatty acids, etc. Some companies have tried additives to make up for this with their milk from cows fed exclusively grain. It's good to be educated in today's grocery, but yeah, labeling can help. It's sad to see efforts at labeling diluted by big money's power.
›4 Replies-
-
re: ccbweb
This is an excellent example of misleading labeling, leading to unfair marketing advantages for the organics industry which had lobbied for the labels that caused the confusion. The return to similar labels for products with identical characteristics as far as hormones are concerned does not mislead consumers. The organics industry can put their big bucks into promoting the benefits that organic milk might provide consumers instead of lobbying for deceptive labeling.
-
-
I know Michal Hansen, and he is absolutely right on this issue. He's right most of the time. The mega-farms have lobbied for this because it puts them at a competitive disadvantage.
Organic regulations supposedly ban the use of hormones on dairy cattle (and meat animals), but there seems to be a lot of hanky panky going on in the milk area. Wal-Mart has been caught selling non-organic milk as organic, and there are suspicions that a lot of other chains are doing so, knowingly or unknowingly.
›3 Replies-
-
re: ccbweb
I believe the argument stems from the fact that these cows are grain-fed and not pastured, which the organic foods industry states is "diluting the principles of organic farming": http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/16/bus...
-
-
-
Mawrter
Jan 24, 2008 04:46 PM
Well, the Rendell Administration got an earful from consumers and did a 180. Well, Maybe a 170.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/200...
EXCERPT: "Though labels are once again permitted to mention that hormones were not used, the standards require a disclaimer stating there is no difference in milk from cows injected with hormones and milk from cows that are not injected. Such disclaimers already are printed on many milk cartons."
-
coney with everything
Dec 26, 2007 03:56 AM
What an example of money talks! This is the kind of crap that makes people cynical about government.
I buy organic, but if that's not available, I buy the local dairy "hormone free" milk. I'm in Michigan, so no such law here.
The hormones from the treated cows' milk certainly don't do us any good, and may do harm. Why take a chance?
-
I wonder what kind of campaign contributions were made to Mr. Wolff by the dairy industry to compel him to issue such a ruling. If there are no artificial hormones used in the milk production, I want to know because that is something that I look for. The consumer should have the information it wants on products in order to make an informed decision on what to buy. Maybe the dairy industry should look at the number of people that desire milk without artificial hormones and adjust their production to that fact.
›1 Reply-
re: NE_Elaine
Mawrter
Dec 24, 2007 02:17 PM
PA Secretary of Agriculture Dennis Wolff was appointed by Governor Rendell.
Actually, I just checked out the Dept of Ag website and it says "Wolff is a dairy farmer and owns Pen-Col Farms, a 600-acre dairy cattle operation specializing in purebred Holstein genetics." It also notes at the bottom of the page that the website with his bio was updated in 2007.
-
-
alkapal
Dec 24, 2007 01:53 AM
there are no hormone additives to milk. that would make it adulterated milk. cows may get hormones injected. whether they get synthetic hormone injections or not, ALL cow's milk has hormones. that is why labeling as "hormone free" is misleading -- because it is factually incorrect. it also leads the consumer to infer the milk NOT labeled hormone free is bad.
http://www.monsantodairy.com/about/index.htmlhttp://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/got-milk-maybe-but-do-you-know-what-kind
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/20...
i drink organic milk from horizon, and i have had other fine brands. i like the mouth feel and flavor better.
i will have to investigate further, to see if the "organic" rules only deal with food/pesticide
inputs into animal production....(and not deal with animal drugs)....PS, I would LOVE it if some food science experts would weigh in on this thread, before it goes (predictably) into hyperbole and misinformation.....
›2 Replies-
re: alkapal
Mawrter
Dec 24, 2007 02:08 PM
Sorry, I did phrase that poorly. I guess I unconsciously assumed that anyone with a basic working knowledge of the issue was aware, as we are, that the hormones go into the cow, not directly into the milk.
According the website of the National Dairy Council, organic farmers do not give their cows synthetic hormones. see http://www.nationaldairycouncil.org/N...
-
re: alkapal
Ruth Lafler
Dec 26, 2007 02:26 PM
The article is a little sloppily written and conflates two different issues. It says "The state Agriculture Department has forbidden dairies that don't use the hormone from touting that fact on milk-bottle labels, ..." and then it talks about the term "hormone-free" and how it's misleading.
While I would agree that "hormone-free" is a misleading term that shouldn't be allowed on labels, "touting the fact" that the cows are not treated with artificial hormones is not the same thing. In California, for example, milk is often labeled "from cows not treated with the hormone rBST" and then there's an asterisk and a disclaimer that there's no difference between the milk from cows treated or untreated with rBST. It sounds like that language would not be allowed under the PA regulation, but that's a separate claim from "hormone-free" and it's a bit disingenous for the farmers quoted in the story to complain about "hormone-free" being misleading when this regulation appears to include statements of fact that are not misleading.
I think the use of rBST, while probably not unhealthy for humans, is unnecessarily cruel to dairy cows, and so I prefer to support dairy farmers who don't use it.
-
-
meatn3
Dec 23, 2007 12:02 PM
This is disturbing. Regardless of individual feelings regarding the validity of organic, etc. The consumer has a right to the information needed to make an informed choice. The fact that this information has made its way onto countless containers of dairy indicates that there is a demand for the information. Pa. is taking a step back in consumer rights and will make it harder for countless people to have the information they want in order to make THEIR choice.
›3 Replies-
-
re: meatn3
Richard 16
Dec 25, 2007 08:03 PM
I agree with meatn3. If the mainstream dairy industry has a problem with it they should organize an ad war to debunk it. I doubt they would do it, because many people would start looking for the "hormone-free" milk just to on the safe side.
To that I say tough to the "industry". If there really are hormones that have been given to the cows that do not make it into the milk they should go ahead and advertise that. Most people will get confused and do what most people do anyway -- buy the cheapest.
-
re: Richard 16
You put your finger on it exactly.
Those who would force the misleading labeling of "hormone-free" or "non-rbST" milk intend that consumers will believe that there is something wrong with regular milk, even though the milk is chemically indistinguishable. There is NO difference. Period. Regardless of what some would believe.
The organic producers can charge more for the milk - and they do. This is especially burdensome to the poor, those who use WIC and Food stamps and others on limited incomes, not to mention thousands of small dairy farmers.
Milk producers should not have to spend money to defend a perfectly safe product or prove a negative. The organic milk industry will have to end their government-backed deceptive advantage and compete on a level playing field. There may be other reasons to purchase organic milk but rbST labeling isn't one of them.
-
-
