ACSH
By Ruth Kava, Ph.D., R.D.
August 29, 2007

Both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have ruled that companies that sell milk and other dairy products may state that the milk comes from cows that were not treated with recombinant bovine somatatropin (rBST)http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.320/pub_detail.asp. This bioengineered hormone is identical to the one naturally produced by cows and, when injected, extends the period of milk production. Monsanto, the corporation that produces rBST, had sued to restrict such labeling.

Marketers who use the “our cows aren’t given rBST” approach are thus legally correct but scientifically wrongheaded. There’s nothing unhealthful or dangerous (to humans or cows) from using rBST, in spiteof activists’ claims (does anyone doubt that the proponents of organic foods are behind these claims?). But the implication of this labeling is that the milk from rBST-treated cows is somehow inferior to that from untreated cows, which it isn’t. Thus it perpetuates a myth about the supposed advantages of “natural” products.

While ACSH is in favor of truthful advertising and marketing, sometimes following the letter of the law can lead to the dissemination of misinformation. This is such a case.

Ruth Kava, Ph.D., R.D., is Director of Nutrition at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com). Source: American Council on Science and Health.

WASHINGTON, DC — The nation’s oldest consumer group is urging the federal government to get involved in the current controversy surrounding milk labels, saying the practice of unqualified “hormone-free” labels can confuse consumers and may lead them to make purchasing decisions based on incomplete information.

nclnet
January 26, 2007

Excerpt…

Amid Current Debate over Hormones, National Consumers League Encourages FDA to Revisit Decade-old Labeling Rules

Washington, DC - The nation’s oldest consumer group is urging the federal government to get involved in the current controversy surrounding milk labels, saying the practice of unqualified “hormone-free” labels can confuse consumers and may lead them to make purchasing decisions based on incomplete information.
In a letter from National Consumers League President Linda F. Golodner to Barbara Schneeman, director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements, Golodner expressed the group’s concern over the labeling of milk products as ‘hormone free,’ and ‘rBST free’ citing the FDA’s prior determination that such unqualified labeling appears to be false or misleading for consumers.

Golodner cautioned that recent trends in milk labeling practices regarding rBST…run counter to the FDA’s current position that rBST-treated cows do not produce unhealthy milk.

As currently used, the claims are too vague to be helpful to consumers, and they may lead consumers to pay more. “This practice is in conflict with FDA’s determination that milk from cows treated with rBST is no different, in terms of health and safety, than milk from untreated cows,” wrote Golodner.

The reality, according to NCL, is that all cows contain at least some form of naturally occurring hormones, and producers should not be permitted to attract potential customers with a blanket “hormone-free” label. Rather, existing FDA interpretation of law permits producers to indicate that milk comes from cows not treated with rBST if labels are also qualified to clarify that no significant difference has been shown between milk from rBST- and non rBST-treated cattle.

As more and more consumers express interest in the origins, additives, and processing of their foods, accurate labeling will be increasingly important. NCL urges the FDA to take a proactive role in this field so that consumer interests are protected in this rapidly expanding and dynamic marketplace.

“FDA in 2003 issued Warning Letters to several milk processors objecting to this practice. Given its recent reappearance and increasing popularity, we suggest that FDA again consider taking action to protect consumers of an essential food,” Golodner wrote.

Penn State Animal and Science Guest Blogs
Troy L. Ott, Ph.D., PAS
Associate Professor of Reproductive Biology
Department of Dairy and Animal Science

Excerpt…

Hold on to your wallets ladies and gentlemen. A number of large dairy processors are getting ready to pull the old “smoke-and-mirrors” trick that will result in you paying more for your milk while at the same time hurting the environment. “How could this be?” you say. Here’s the scam: retailers will sell “rbST-free” milk to you for a premium of about 40 cents to $2.20 per gallon. As discussed in Terry Etherton’s Blog, the milk is not different in composition from other milk, but you will have a vague feeling that it is somehow better. Never mind that rbST has been determined by the FDA to be a safe and effective way to increase milk production by 10 - 15%. Never mind that it has been shown to be an effective tool to increase the efficiency of dairying. Never mind that it has been approved for use for over 10 years without any documented problems. NONE!

That’s the smoke, now what about the mirrors? Well, it doesn’t take a rocket (or animal) scientist to figure out that if you take away a safe and effective tool to increase milk production by 10 - 15%, farmers will need to increase cow numbers to make up for the lost milk production. These cows will use more resources…and generate more waste…and take up more space. This will increase the environmental impact of dairying in your communities. In addition, because productivity and efficiency will be reduced on many of our nations’ dairies, they will be less profitable. “What’s wrong with that, I don’t like big corporate farms.” you say. Here’s what’s wrong with that. When dairy processors force our dairies to give up using rbST, those dairies will experience a cash flow problem. What do you do when that happens at your home? You cut corners on spending. On a dairy, things like facility modernization, herd health vaccinations, cow comfort upgrades could be delayed or scrapped. Furthermore, employees’ wages will suffer as dairies scramble to reduce costs to stay in business. The dairies, their employees and the cows all suffer. Without this effective tool to increase efficiency, smaller dairies will be squeezed to either get larger or get out of the business.

Sadly, there is another big cost. One that you will never see, but believe me you will feel it in your pocketbook. That cost will be the technologies and improvements in dairying that will never see the light of day. This is because the pharmaceutical/biotechnology industry will have learned an important lesson. That it does not matter if you do things the right way and provide safe effective technologies to animal agriculture. Some marketing “guru” with his smoke machine will come up with a way to conjure up another niche in the market. He’ll let anti-technology fanatics fan the flames with unsubstantiated claims of health or safety, and convince you to pay more for less. Bottom line: The true environmentalists among us should see this scam for what it really is. Safe, effective technologies like bST that increase the efficiency and profitability of dairying benefit all of us, the cows, and the environment.

Monsanto (Nachrichten/Aktienkurs) announced today that new data from a national study of milk show that marketing claims implying that milk from cows not treated with POSILAC bovine somatotropin (bST) is safer or healthier are misleading.

ST LOUIS, Jan. 25 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — Monsanto (Nachrichten/Aktienkurs) announced today that new data from a national study of milk show that marketing claims implying that milk from cows not treated with POSILAC bovine somatotropin (bST) is safer or healthier are misleading. Scientific analysis of retail milk samples gathered from 48 states showed no difference in concentrations of bST, insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), progesterone or nutrients in conventionally produced milk and conventionally produced milk labeled as coming from cows not supplemented with POSILAC. No antibiotic residues were found in any samples.

The findings of the study, conducted by Monsanto with third-party testing facilities and an independent auditing firm, reinforce that milk marketing claims differentiating milk based on POSILAC use are meaningless.

"The study findings are not surprising. Marketing claims that imply differences are unsupported by the scientific data," said John Vicini, Ph.D., lead dairy scientist for Monsanto. "The results are consistent with FDA’s exhaustive review of previous studies."

The new study included 213 samples of 95 milk brands and compared conventionally produced milk with conventionally produced milk labeled as coming from cows not receiving POSILAC. The samples were gathered from 162 retail locations in 48 states. The study results, which Monsanto intends to submit to a peer-reviewed scientific journal, showed that there was:
– no difference in the levels of the hormones progesterone, IGF-1 or bST, — no differences in nutrients, and — no antibiotic residue in any of the samples.

Monsanto initiated the research after recent actions taken by several processors and retailers implied or suggested to consumers that conventionally produced milk is compositionally different if it comes from cows not supplemented with POSILAC.

"These results call into question marketing of higher priced milk from cows not treated with POSILAC based on claims about growth hormones or antibiotics that imply a difference in milk composition or safety," Vicini said. "They confuse consumers regarding a safe, nutritious food that’s an important part of a healthy diet."

"Farmers should be free to choose FDA-approved technology that lowers their costs and provides the same quality milk to consumers," said Kevin Holloway, president of Monsanto’s dairy business. "As a tool that makes dairy producers more efficient, POSILAC also reduces the environmental impact of dairying."

POSILAC is an FDA-approved supplement used by U.S. dairy farmers to increase productivity. Since it was first sold in 1994, POSILAC has become one of the leading dairy animal supplements in the United States. Supplementing dairy cows with POSILAC safely enhances milk production and serves as an important tool to help dairy producers improve the efficiency of their operations and operate them in a more environmentally friendly way. POSILAC helps farmers with herds of all sizes produce more milk per cow. This provides dairy farmers with additional economic security by increasing return on investment. Cows supplemented with POSILAC produce an average of 10 lb. more milk per day.

Monsanto Company is a leading provider of technology-based solutions and agricultural products that improve farm productivity and food quality. For more information on Monsanto and POSILAC, see http://www.monsanto.com/.

Note to editors: POSILAC is a registered trademark owned by Monsanto Company and its wholly owned subsidiaries.

To Pennsylvania Milk Producers:

The October grassroots producer meeting held in Schaefferstown, PA to examine the so-called “rbST-free” issue is getting some results, and it looks like we can keep this technology available to us if we take action now.

A few local milk processors like Wengert’s Dairy and Clover Farms have decided to back off earlier demands that producers sign a no-rbST affidavit. And we are hearing that other co-ops and processors like Maryland Virginia Cooperative have decided not to pursue rbST free milk. They need the milk and there is no sustained consumer demand for this new rbST free category.

Since that meeting, attended by about 100 producers and industry professionals, we have had a chance to compare some retail prices and learn what kinds of “commissions” producers are getting. The bottom line is that the milk processors stand to make a big profit from the new milk category, and producers are getting peanuts.

For example, in Philadelphia, regular 2 % milk is selling for $3.89 per gallon. Organic milk is selling for $3.99 per half gallon. We could not find any rbST-free milk. However, in the Northern New Jersey and New York City market, regular 1% milk is $3.05/gallon while 1% rbST free milk is $3.40 – 4.09/gallon. Organic milk is selling for $5.29/gallon. For every 8 cents a retailer charges for a gallon of milk it is equal to $1/cwt. Thus, a $3 gallon of milk sells for $37.5 /cwt.

Depending on the locale, retailers are making $5 to $13 (40 cents premium /8 cents = $5 profit) per cwt on rbST free milk, but dairy producers are only receiving 3 to 12 cents per hundredweight or .6-2.4% of the premium, if that, for giving up the right to use this technology. Even 75 cents only represents 10-15% of the premium. There have even been some examples of processors trying to get the milk from non-treated cows without paying any premium at all.

It remains to be seen if consumers will respond to this new category. If they do respond and we all have given up our right to use the technology, the “rbST free” category will become commodity milk, and the price will come down. Any premiums you are getting will go away, and we as dairymen will have lost an important tool that makes us more efficient and profitable.

Consumers have not been demanding this milk (see http://blogs.das.psu.edu/tetherton/?p=109), but big companies hope to create a demand by scaring shoppers. It’s a loser for consumers, and there is nothing in this for the hard-working dairyman, not in the short run and certainly not in the long run when this new category is a commodity. We need to defend our right to use safe and effective technologies and practices on our farms. And we must resist any campaign that makes consumers think milk is not safe.

All dairy farmers need to challenge the coops, processors and retailers that create milk labels and/or advertisements on controversial products such as rbST. Milk labeling and advertising should clear-up fears, not stir-up fears; eliminate confusion, not create confusion; promote dairy, not demote dairy. Our promotion dollars are lost if dairymen allow retailers and bottlers to cannibalize the final products that the customers purchase.

We as dairymen can put a stop to this by ensuring that food companies are unable to provide enough “rbST-free” milk to continue this marketing charade. So, if you have signed an affidavit, we urge you to contact your processor or coop and tell them that you are rescinding your signature. Tell them this “no-rbST” trend is unfair to you, and to consumers and that you want no part of it.

As dairymen our reputation is on the line. Dairymen should be unified in a resounding proclamation. We must demand truth from our food companies. They are part of our team and the consumer deserves honesty in labeling and advertising. We have always produced a product that is totally safe, wholesome and healthy to the consumer and we will continue too. For this reason, we as dairymen should and will not be part of any false advertising or marketing tactics that create false perceptions that the milk consumers’ purchase is not safe, wholesome and healthy.

Sincerely,

Dan Brandt
Annville, PA

Tom Krall
Schaefferstown, PA

Nelson Martin
Robesonia, PA

Sales in the food industry grow at less than three percent a year. Why? The population is growing at about that pace and there is only so much food people can eat. But sales in the organic food industry are growing at a whopping 20-30 percent a year, as consumers learn more about additives and pesticides in food, and as the organic food industry has been able to tout the benefits of nature.

But organic food products cost more than conventionally produced ones, mostly because their producers are smaller, the work is sometimes more labor-intensive, and the requirements for food certified as organic is high.
Enter the charlatans, folks who combine the concern about pesticides and additives with their own desire to grab hold of the profits available to those who can distinguish the food they produce from "ordinary" food. You’ve seen the labels for fat-free chocolate, calorie-free pound cake, sugar-free candy and other oxymoronic combinations. Another set of labels stretch the truth and tell only part of the story - labels for "hormone-free" milk. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has admonished milk producers to stop using misleading labels, there are complaints against milk producers in several states about misleading "hormone free" labels (which some are calling "organic lite" labels), and consumers are paying more money for milk that is neither organic nor "hormone free".

Here’s why. Animals produce hormones. Whether milk production is enhanced by rBST, a synthetic version of the bovine hormone cows naturally produced, or not, it is not "hormone free". Organic milk, as opposed to so-called hormone free milk, is produced from organic dairies that go through a rigorous certification process with the Department of Agriculture. Absent this certification process, the claim that milk is "hormone free" is absolutely meaningless. But it allows some greedy producers to attempt to differentiate their milk from other milk and earn a price premium on it.

The dairy processors who want to exploit the "hormone free" designation are pressuring dairy farmers to stop using rBST, which enhances milk production (and boosts dairy farmer profits) by about 10 percent. Few of these farmers receive any financial incentives to stop using the synthetic, and the premium paid to these few farmers isn’t large enough to cover their losses so those who yield to their pressure end up earning less from their cows. But the dairy processors reap the profits for a product that cannot be distinguished from rBST-enhanced milk in terms of safety, composition, nutrition, or taste. While there are chemical tests that can distinguish between organic milk and non-organic milk, there are no chemical tests that can distinguish between milk produced using synthetic rBST and "hormone free" milk because cows produce hormones anyway.

The difference comes when a consumer, concerned that her newborn is ingesting too many chemicals, decides to go with the "hormone free" milk at an extra dollar a carton, and gets nothing different than if she’d chosen a carton that does not say "hormone free." The consumer’s fears are being exploited. She’s reading a label, but not seeing the fine print. Hormone free milk is presented as being "better" or "safer" than milk produced using rBST. But it isn’t!

Diary processors like Hood and Garelick are taking advantage of the natural foods trend and the ways that people’s fears about food can be manipulated. Salt, sugar, fats, preservatives and hormones all get a bad name these days, with additives supposedly responsible for everything from obesity to cancer. If these claims can be proven, it makes sense to use them to sell more of a safer product. But there is no such thing as hormone free milk. There’s conventionally produced milk, and there’s organic milk which, in scarce supply, sells for as much as three times as much as "regular" milk does.

The movement to mislabel milk "hormone free" hurts both dairy farmers and consumers. Dairy farmers are pressured to stop using a production tool that boosts milk production and increases their profit and they aren’t getting a cut of the extra money dairy processors get from their faulty labels. And consumers pay more for a product that is not at all different from the cheaper product.

Low-income consumers, especially, wanting the best for their kids are pushed into spending money they can ill afford for a product that is exactly the same as a cheaper product. It’s time for the FDA to step in to require dairy processors to do the right thing. Got milk? Got hormones? Got truth?

Author:  Dr. Julianne Malveaux

NOAAH: Low-Income Consumers Needlessly Paying More for Identical Milk

AfricanAmericanTimes.net

Excerpt…

WASHINGTON, DC – The National Organization for African Americans in Housing (NOAAH), a non-profit advocate for low-income citizens, has called on the U.S. Food & Drug Administration to stop dairy processors from deceptively marketing “no rBST” milk, which is identical to other milk but costs more.

In a letter to the FDA, NOAAH Board Secretary Kevin Marchman said the milk processors making these claims are presenting low-income consumers with a horrible choice: spend limited food money on higher-priced milk that is identical to less expensive products, or serve their families milk which they believe to be lower in quality and less safe than what others can afford.

“We worry that low-income consumers — fearing ‘hormones in milk’ but unable to afford the more expensive “rBST free” products — will stop drinking milk altogether and opt for less-healthy alternatives,” Marchman wrote.

For more than a decade, dairy farmers have been using rBST to increase the amount of milk that their cows provide. Experts say there is no difference between “rBST-free milk” and milk from cows given rBST.

Some milk processors, however, recently have begun selling – and charging significantly more for – “rBST-free milk,” Marchman said.

“The expressed position of the Food & Drug Administration and many other government and independent organizations is that milk from cows given rBST is no different than milk from cows not given this hormone,” Marchman wrote. “Yet companies advertising ‘no hormone’ milk are charging as much as a dollar more per carton — an outrageous act given that they are clearly attempting to get consumers, including low-income people with limited resources, to pay more for something that is of no more nutritional value – or safer — than milk that costs less.

“Not only does this deceptive practice impose a needless financial burden on low-income consumers, it is generating unnecessary confusion and anxiety,” Marchman added. “It presents a very unwelcome dilemma for our constituency: either pay more for safe milk, or buy what you can afford and risk ‘hormones in your milk.’”

Marchman is urging the FDA to put a halt to the “deceptive” practice, saying that it “cheats consumers and raises unwarranted fears.”

“On behalf of NOAAH and its members, I strongly encourage the agency to exercise its regulatory authority in taking strong action against dairy processors that are putting profits over people, and scaring consumers about a product so essential to the health of low-income America,” he wrote.

The National Organization of African Americans in Housing (NOAAH) is a non-profit organization that provides technical, operational and moral support to its members and offers opportunities for professional skills enhancement, resident training, and economic development…

###

LETTER

Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, Commissioner
U.S. Food & Drug Administration

Email: andrew.voneschenbach@fda.hhs.gov

Address:5600 Fishers LaneMail Stop: HF-1, Room 14101
Rockville, Maryland 20857FAX: 301-443-3100

Dear Dr. von Eschenbach:

I am the Board Secretary of the National Organization of African-Americans in Housing (NOAAH), a national organization of public housing officials and a leading advocate for affordable housing. One of our organization’s top priorities is assuring that low-income citizens, especially African-Americans and other people of color, have affordable access to a nutritious food supply, and the information they need to make wise dietary decisions.

As you know, milk and other dairy products are an essential part of a healthy diet, especially for growing children and older people. They are important sources of calcium and protein that low-income people can afford. Therefore, it is vital that NOAAH’s constituents have complete confidence in the safety and wholesomeness of the milk products that they buy.

I write you because I am deeply concerned about the practice of a growing number of dairy processors to market milk as “hormone free,” “rBST free,” “no added hormones,” or a similar claim. The expressed position of the Food & Drug Administration and many other government and independent organizations is that milk from cows given rBST is no different than milk from cows not given this hormone. Yet companies advertising “no hormone” milk are charging as much as a dollar more per carton — an outrageous act given that they are clearly attempting to get consumers, including low-income people with limited resources, to pay more for something that is of no more nutritional value –or safer — than milk that costs less.

Not only does this deceptive practice impose a needless financial burden on low-income consumers, it is generating unnecessary confusion and anxiety. It presents a very unwelcome dilemma for our constituency: either pay more for safe milk, or buy what you can afford and risk “hormones in your milk.” We worry that low-income consumers — fearing “hormones in milk” but unable to afford the more expensive “rBST free” products — will stop drinking milk altogether and opt for less-healthy alternatives.

Given this, I am writing to urge the FDA to stop this type of deceptive milk-labeling practice that cheats consumers and raises unwarranted fears. On behalf of NOAAH and its members, I strongly encourage the agency to exercise its regulatory authority in taking strong action against dairy processors that are putting profits over people, and scaring consumers about a product so essential to the health of low-income America.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,
Kevin Marchman
Board Secretary
National Organization for African Americans in Housing

Author: Kevin Marchman