498138 Tue Mar 11 14:41:13 -0700 2008 22 33 Food Media and News 0 3482983 In short, according to the NYT, they're trying to ban "hormone free" labels from milk because it "confuses consumers" and denies farmers the right to choose "to use a variety of F.D.A.-approved technologies". http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/business/09feed.html?_r=1&ref=dining&oref=slogin apologies if this is the wrong section. Tue Mar 11 14:41:13 -0700 2008 71935 luniz 1 3483362 That is disturbing. I don't think they are going to get anywhere with it, given that 88% of the public believes that milk should come from cows that aren't treated with r-BST. Tue Mar 11 16:40:12 -0700 2008 3482983 11028 DanaB 2 3483372 And, yet, its FDA approved. So they'll get somewhere with it. Tue Mar 11 16:43:46 -0700 2008 3483362 80141 ccbweb 1 3483400 The FDA maintains that homone treated cows don't suffer negative effects and that the milk from treated and untreated cows is exactly the same. Farmers--not just Monsanto--want to use the hormones given an increase of a gallon per day of output. On the one hand, consumers have the right to decide what they want and should be provided with labeling. On the other hand, consumers should then be willing to pay more for the milk from untreated cows. Tue Mar 11 16:52:13 -0700 2008 3482983 36661 Sam Fujisaka 2 3484186 >>On the one hand, consumers have the right to decide what they want and should be provided with labeling. On the other hand, consumers should then be willing to pay more for the milk from untreated cows.<< Nobody is saying the farmers shouldn't be able to use the product. What this group is arguing is that farmers who don't use the hormone CANNOT advertize their product as "hormone free." That's the part of their argument I find to be suspicious, regardless of whether r-BST is approved by the FDA. By the way, in my neck of the woods (Los Angeles), I do pay more for milk that is hormone free. From an economic perspective, with labeling, all dairy farmers are on a level playing field -- the farmers that don't use hormones get a lower yield but benefit from higher prices from consumers who prefer their product, while farmers who use the hormone get a higher yield but receive a lower price, because that's what the market will bear. By trying to "ban" labeling re. hormones, the farmers that use them are trying to gain an unfair edge over the farmers who raise their cattle and produce milk without hormones, the latter of which appears to be the public's preference. I just don't see how they will get anywhere with it, given the strong public demand for labeling on subjects such as this. I am especially suspicious, because it seems that this move to ban labeling re. hormones is driven by the company (Monsanto) that produces the hormone and is merely an attempt on their part to shore up their market for the hormone, and has absolutely nothing to do with consumer "confusion" or truth in labeling. Tue Mar 11 22:01:35 -0700 2008 3483400 11028 DanaB 3 3484672 We agree completely. I say that consumers, "should be provided with labeling" and that consumers should be willing to pay a premium for milk from treated cows. You're willing to pay. Wed Mar 12 06:37:30 -0700 2008 3484186 36661 Sam Fujisaka 1 3483413 Interesting link! I have a hard time thinking of an organization that is backed by or in any way affiliated with Monsanto as being "grass roots." If they think the consumer is "confused" by such information and they have information that shows that there are no health concerns for synthetic growth hormones, why not mount a campaign to inform, rather than try to restrict options. I mean, that's what the egg people did when everyone was concerned about cholesterol, and now we have that great jingle, "I like eggs, from my head down to my legs..." I fail to see how removing information will help to clarify any issues for the consumer. I like hormone free milk, as long as I have a choice, that's what I buy. Tue Mar 11 16:56:08 -0700 2008 3482983 70760 pierrot 1 3484820 the farmer's co-ops in my area don't allow rbgh milk because it lowers the overall grade of milk from everyone's contribution when the milks are mixed at the dairy. due to the high pus content in rbgh milk. farmers should be able to advertise rbgh-free to signify better farming practices, higher grade milk, fewer hormones in the final product. igf-1 levels in rbgh milk are 5 times that of regular milk. the hormone is linked to the rapid growth of cancer cells, especially associated with breast, prostrate and colon cancers. it's not destroyed by pasteurization or processing. consumers should be able to make informed decisions if they are at risk of these cancers. i don't think they are "confused" at all if they choose hormone-free milk. Wed Mar 12 07:32:08 -0700 2008 3482983 46030 soupkitten 2 3484825 "high pus content"? Do you have any references? Wed Mar 12 07:33:51 -0700 2008 3484820 36661 Sam Fujisaka 3 3484978 the pus content of milk (due to increased mastitis and other disease) was noted along with the other physical effects on treated cattle in the transcript of the fda approval of rbgh. concern about animal welfare due to increased mastitis infection in treated cattle was one of the reasons that rbgh was originally banned in europe, japan, canada-- every developed nation except the u.s; the concerns re: human health actually came later. this letter is a good summary of the milk labeling controversy including many citations: http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/monsanto/FinalResponsetoFTC.pdf Wed Mar 12 08:22:42 -0700 2008 3484825 46030 soupkitten 4 3486075 That is a letter from an NGO or lobbyst organization. I'll get some inputs from our tropical pastures people. One of them is an old ex-Berkeley type but a solid scientist. I'll ask and get back to this thread. Wed Mar 12 12:47:17 -0700 2008 3484978 36661 Sam Fujisaka 5 3486500 actually it's a legal recommendation-- written by a lawyer, not a scientist. the citations, a mix of legal and scientific in nature, are the point. many fda studies in there too. monsanto's own research indicates that there is a 79% increase in mastitis (udder infections) and a resulting 19% increase in somatic cell counts (pus & bacteria in the milk). this is from the prosilac warning label, distributed by monsanto with the drug as legally mandated: "Cows injected with POSILAC are at an increased risk for clinical mastitis (visibly abnormal milk). The number of cows affected with clinical mastitis and the number of cases per cow may increase.... In some herds, use of POSILAC has been associated with increases in somatic cell counts [pus & bacteria]. . . use of POSILAC may result in an increase in digestive disorders such as indigestion, bloat, and diarrhea.... Studies indicated that cows injected with POSILAC had increased numbers of enlarged hocks and lesions (e.g., lacerations, enlargements, calluses) of the knee...and...of the foot region." of course, pus is gross-- people don't want to think about drinking pus in their milk, but i believe that the igf-1 levels and their associations with cancer & reproductive abnormalities are what is most concerning to the EU and codex scientists who have weighed in. Wed Mar 12 14:30:41 -0700 2008 3486075 46030 soupkitten 6 3487228 soupkitten, I'm still onto this. Very interesting. Might need a new food fear, "pus in milk"! Is milk from cows with mastitus actually marketed? Wed Mar 12 18:41:02 -0700 2008 3486500 36661 Sam Fujisaka 7 3488250 yeah, it is, unfortunately. ***eeeeewww****! like i said, the more pus-full milk is frequently downgraded at the dairy & as a result commonly becomes a butter or ice-cream ingredient (the farmer gets less $ per unit as a result than s/he would if it was premium drinking milk). pasteurization is supposed to take care of the nasties. Thu Mar 13 07:09:49 -0700 2008 3487228 46030 soupkitten 8 3489348 mmmm....pus butter Thu Mar 13 11:27:21 -0700 2008 3488250 36661 Sam Fujisaka 9 3489397 oh. . . that was unfortunate that i read your comment, Sam, just as i was eating my buttery spear of asparagus! lmao! ahh. . . well i have a strong stomach, and it was organic butter, hopefully pus-free, right? :) Thu Mar 13 11:38:04 -0700 2008 3489348 46030 soupkitten 1 3484982 I always buy non-r-BST dairy and meats, and buy local when at all possible. If some farmers want to use it, fine. BUT! My biggest complaint though is not being informed as a consumer. It burns me that so much of our food is allegedly irradiated yet we are not informed. There are NO regulations in place to tell us. I appreciate stores that tell the consumer where the fruits, veggies and fish come from (like Whole Foods) and what they are treated with. That way I can choose whether I want to pay more for organic or not. Wed Mar 12 08:23:39 -0700 2008 3482983 117621 poptart 2 3485520 well according to Monsanto, you're not really making an educated decision, you're just a stupid dupe who's been mislead by heinous groups like PETA who hate farmers and consumers. And you guys who think they won't get anywhere with this are naive. My bet is that in two years time it's illegal to label as "no artificial hormones" or whatever. How will that come to pass? A couple new factories built in the states of some sympathetic and powerful congressmen/women.... So enjoy it while it lasts. Wed Mar 12 10:29:43 -0700 2008 3484982 71935 luniz 3 3502045 ALL milk has hormones. from a prior post on a similar issue*: 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.html http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/got-milk-maybe-but-do-you-know-what-kind http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/20... _____________ * "PA prohibits labelling milk "hormone-free" http://www.chowhound.com/topics/472156 Mon Mar 17 15:13:31 -0700 2008 3485520 105717 alkapal 4 3502417 My dairy does not label their milk "hormone free," they label it as "milk that has come from cows who have not been treated with r-BST." And, citing as authority on this topic the company that manufactures r-BST and is trying to ban dairy farmers from advertising the fact that they don't use r-BST is like trusting the fox when he says he's going to guard the hen house. Neither of your other links work, and if you read through the prior chowhound thread that you linked on this subject, Pennsylvania reversed its decision on the milk-labeling ban almost immediately. Mon Mar 17 17:10:00 -0700 2008 3502045 11028 DanaB 5 3502633 my point is not about penn's decision. in fact what you cite as a reversal is a reinforcement of my point (btw, my post there was a month prior to such "reversal", so your comment about me "reading" the thread i linked is inapt...) To wit: "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." Mon Mar 17 18:30:35 -0700 2008 3502417 105717 alkapal 6 3503237 You are missing the point. There might not be a difference in the MILK that is produced by the cows, but there certainly is a difference in the health of the cows themselves. The U.S.A. is pretty much alone in approving the use of r-BST. Canada and Europe have banned it, not because the milk is tainted, but because of the health problems it imposes on the cows: "A European Union scientific commission was asked to report on the incidence of mastitis and other disorders in dairy cows and on other aspects of the welfare of dairy cows. The commission's statement, subsequently adopted by the European Union, stated that the use of rBST substantially increased health problems with cows, including foot problems, mastitis and injection site reactions, impinged on the welfare of the animals and caused reproductive disorders. The report concluded that on the basis of the health and welfare of the animals, rBST should not be used. Health Canada prohibited the sale of rBST in 1999; the recommendations of external committees were that despite not finding a significant health risk to humans, the drug presented a threat to animal health and for this reason could not be sold in Canada." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin#_note-Dohoo2003 (the Wiki article cites the academic sources of the quote above). Like I said previously, I do not have a problem with farmers using the hormone to increase their milk production. What I do have a problem with is forbiding farmers who do NOT use the hormone from advertising their product as being such. They get less yeild, and get a higher price from buyers who prefer their product. The farmers that use the hormone get a higher yeild but a lower price, because it is seen as less desirable to some parts of the public (those that can afford to pay a premium for their milk). I don't see how you can educate the public out of that thinking -- some people would rather their milk be produced naturally, and not with hormone stimulation, regardless of the "safety" of the product produced. They should be allowed to pay extra for that milk, and know that milk is coming from cows that are not treated with the drug or subject to the kinds of side effects the drug has on cows. Basically, the opponents' argument in this picture is that they want to use the hormone, and have their milk compete on the same market and at the same price as farmers who extract their milk naturally. In other words, they want their cake and to eat it, too. However, farming practices have consequences, and until Monsanto proves that the dairy cows on r-BST are equally as healthy and have the same side effects as dairy cows not on r-BST, they will not win this battle. Sometimes the issue is not just about the safety of the final product, but how it is produced. That is where the r-BST issue lies, and until you can provide me with studies that say that cows treated with r-BST are equally as healthy and suffer the same rates of mastitis as cows that haven't been treated with r-BST, I will continue to pay extra for the milk from untreated cows. And I will support the right of farmers who choose not to use the drug to tell us they are not using the drug. And, if you do have that data, I will be the first to admit I'm wrong. However, everything I've read on this subject indicates otherwise. Tue Mar 18 03:32:50 -0700 2008 3502633 11028 DanaB 1 3505610 My basic belief is that milk producers should be able in some form or fashion to label such that they can adequately describe their animal farming practices. I thought the FDA was satisfied, but it's clear that Monsanto is going to use state legislatures, who can be bought quite handily, to make labeling more challenging state by state, probably until the whole nation has succumbed. Here in KS, the legislature has a bill in committee, which, by rules, will have to get voted on soon. Do not doubt the power of the big ag giants in the state of Kansas, chowhounds. Don't doubt their power elsewhere in the country. There are bills before the CA legislature of a similar nature trying to ban raw milk's sale because of the inability to prove it's raw through testing. Food labeling is just the tip of the iceberg of food issues as they relate to government subsidies and influence by agriculture corporations at state and federal levels. The will of the people, whether influenced by ignorance or by education and opinion, may have little power to fight this influence until we let our senators and house members know our thoughts, and that we vote. Even then... Tue Mar 18 17:06:27 -0700 2008 3482983 24126 amyzan