Monsanto failed to get the FDA to ban “rBGH-free” labeling nationally, and it’s had mixed success at the state level. Now the company and its gang of ethics-free dairy farmers (those are the ones who use rBGH to increase profits, but want that truth kept out of the marketplace because it’s unpopular with consumers) have scored a significant win in Ohio this week. Yesterday the state passed a law that forces extra, rBGH-friendly fine print on every milk label that promotes itself as “rBGH-free.” The goal of the ruling: to require expensive label redesigns on competitors, and to crowd the label with unnecessary fine print in order to dilute the marketing power of the “rBGH-free” label.
The Columbus Dispatch explains some of the expected consequences of the ruling:
The Kroger Co., for example, recently made the switch to milk from cows who don’t receive the added hormone, saying that it’s what consumers wanted. Ben & Jerry’s Homeade Inc. has done the same.
Both companies argued against the rule change, saying it was a solution in search of a nonexistent problem and would require expensive labeling changes that would potentially hurt their position in the marketplace.
“They simply did not consider the costs of designing labels, not to mention marketing strategies,” said Jerry Slominski, senior vice president for legislative affairs for the International Dairy Foods Association, which represents 85 percent of the nation’s milk, cheese and ice cream makers.
Janene Holmes, marketing assistant for the Smith Dairy Products Company, told lawmakers that the family owned company pays its farmers a premium to supply milk from cows not treated with the growth hormone. The new labeling rule will require the company to move its hormone advertisement to a less prominent place on the label, Holmes said.
Food and Water Watch sent out the following statement (emphasis ours):
“On Monday, Ohio passed a milk-labeling rule that could deny all Americans important information about how their milk was produced. Governor Strickland, and the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s rule limiting hormone-free milk labels goes far beyond the Food and Drug Administration’s guidance. It is clear that this rule was crafted for industrial agribusiness and not consumers. It requires the prohibitive use of a misleading disclaimer, while banning accurate claims such as ‘rBGH-free’ and ‘artificial growth hormone-free.’
“In a nation where milk is sold across state lines and by national chains and distributers, labeling laws in just a few states will impact consumers nationwide. If other states follow Ohio’s lead, it will be challenging for national dairy companies who do not use artificial growth hormones to comply with differing state labeling rules. Already Kroger and Wal-Mart, while they’ve gone rBGH-free this year, have decided not to label their milk pending the outcome of the state-by-state battles.
“The effects of Ohio’s new rule will be felt throughout the country. Consumers everywhere will lose important information, as dairies struggle to comply with the worst milk-labeling rule in the nation.”
“Ohio adopts new dairy label rule for synthetic hormones” [The Columbus Dispatch]
RELATED
“Monsanto Is Trying To Ban Hormone Labeling At The State Level”
(Photo: Getty)
More From Consumerist
-
There Is Such A Thing As The Milk Cliff: If Congress Doesn’t Act Soon, Prices Could Double
-
Congress Reaches Compromise On Farm Bill To Avoid Going Off The Milk Cliff
-
Dairy Industry Worried That The Answer To “Got Milk?” These Days Is: “Nope.”
-
New Breyers Recipes: When Ice Cream Is 'Frozen Dairy Dessert'
-
Enough People Take Surveys For Us To Know That Five Guys Burgers Are Better Than McDonald's
Wow, the industry shills are busy up in this thread. Thanks for banning the obvious one, Chris.
@BannedbyChris-Thanks:
“You simply cannot say they are rBGH-free if you do not test for it in every single cow you milk. It is scientifically and logically invalid.”
This comment on your part belies an apparent ignorance on the topics of scientific testing, statistics and food safety.
@WhirlyBird: You would think they would be able to hire people with a better ability to not be obnoxiously obvious about it.
@parad0x360:
Exactly! I don’t want to buy genetically modified, chemically enhanced food. I don’t know what it could do to me or my family down the road. Why is that such a problem?
I invested in a CSA farm this year and I am thrilled that they have milk and eggs. I will actually know where my food is coming from! Amazing that this is so unusual.
At the moment, my main question about the whole situation revolves around consumer choice.
What rights do consumers have when choosing which products we wish to purchase? What information are we entitled to have when making purchase decisions?
I want to be able to make informed purchases based on my preferences. I want to be able to look at, and effectively compare products. I’m at the grocery store. Two brands of milk are on the shelf. One is from cows treated with rBGH. One is from cows that were not treated with rBGH. Do I have a right to know the difference?
I feel the above is one of the most important issues at hand. If I do have the right to know the difference, the issue becomes one of how I will be informed about the difference. The issue about labels changes from whether or not we should label products, to how do we label products to inform the consumer, as per their right to be informed.
I’m trying not to get ahead of myself, as I don’t want this issue to be mixed in with others. Disregarding things such as health concerns, or whether or not tests for rBGH are valid, and such, I ask- Do I have the right to know the difference between the two milks on the shelf?
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated, all.
IMAGINE THIS: “The Food & Drug Administration finds that there’s no significant difference between Organic and Non-Organic foods.”
It’s superfluous and only serves to undermine the marketing advantages of natural foods.
@nygenxer:
I like organic milk too, I just can’t figure out why it lasts longer (& I’m going by the expiration date here) than the “normal” milk we occasionally get at the corner store.
Labeling on my Kemps Select milk in Minnesota has the Ohio Labelling on it exactly.
The disclaimer about “there has been no proven difference between milk that is or isn’t rBGH free” is directly under the label proclaiming the milk to be rBGH free.
I haven’t studied other brands lately, but I’ll assume they’re all bound by the same policy.
I bring this up just to say that I don’t think this is going to totally kill the market for rBGH milk in Ohio, because there seems to be enough demand (and room on the label!) for this stuff in other markets.
Why does organic milk last longer than non-organic milk? My wife and I just got back from a week of vacation and the first thing I told her was that I was going to toss all the milk. She told me since it’s organic it keeps for up to 2 months. Well it’s been 2 weeks and the milk tastes just fine. Non-organic milk we’ve bought before would be nasty by now.
@Chris Walters: Thank you, couldn’t have said it better my self.
For more on the blood-sucking satan loving Monstanto, check out Vanity Fair this month. There’s a good article on this issue.
@stanfrombrooklyn: Organic is usually ultra-pasturized, giving it a longer shelf life. It’s not pumped full of antibiotics or hormones, and the pasturaization process helps kill off any of the buggers in the milk.
We grew up with milk delivery and all natural, rBGH free milk. When I moved out I had to buy milk from the store for the first time- gross! I switched to organic milk and haven’t looked back- it just tastes better! And while there may be no standardized tests that can tell the difference between rBGH treated and non-rBGH milk, the taste test can. Try it!
Simple solution.
Have a private org create a standard that excludes all this monsanto frankenfood, and trademark it … something similar to “Kosher”.
Vendors want it on their food, then they have to pay for it and meet the standards the private org sets.
“Organic” and “non-rBGH” can be abandoned due to government interference.
This isn’t directly related to the quality of milk, but as a microbiologist who works on Staph infections (which are a big problem in cows), it’s well known that less injections into dairy cows results in less infections. This means less treatment to the cows needs to be done (antibiotics, etc.), and lowers the development of resistance to the applied antibiotic.
And since there’s often overlap between the use of families of antibiotics in humans and farm animals, the less resistance in cows, the better for us.
@nequam:
Commercial speech is definitely protected. There have been Supreme Court rulings on that several years ago.
Corporations are legally considered to be the equivalent of a person.
As long as the speech is truthful & not libelous, no government can regulate it except for a few SEC regulations about news releases due to their effecting stock prices & insider trading.
We need to do something. British milk products taste a world better than the American junk I have been eating my whole life. It is more than the difference between skim and whole…it is a totally different range of flavors. It makes me really sad to see what we put up with and that there really is no way around it for the average consumer. I have joined a CSA, buy from a small-scale egg farmer, and buy locally-bred and raised responsible beef. Milk is the last chain and NO ONE will mess with it. It is too heavily regulated to be worth the time of a small-scale operation. Small-scale dairies HAVE to be encouraged more (or at all, I guess).
BTW, I am writing my governor (Stickland) right now.
They don’t need to consider marketing strategies, or relabeling. If they post signs in their stores on the milk cases and take out print, radio and television ads, they won’t have to relabel their gallons at all. It’s like trans-fat free. I pretty much just assume that fast food is there, now. If they aren’t…why do I care?
But this does make me want to support Kroger! I’ll go buying their milk…watch me.
@stanfrombrooklyn:
I don’t know why organic milk lasts longer, but if someone put a gun to my head, I’d pull some basic science out of my a$$ starting with: spoiling is a microbiological process that’s slowed by pasteurization, right? Pasteurization isn’t 100% effective, otherwise milk would never spoil and you wouldn’t have to keep it cold, right?
So, since pasteurization it isn’t 100% efficient, maybe organic milk lasts longer because it has less harmful bacteria in the milk to start with? I mean, if I’ve gotta clean a window, the glass gets a lot cleaner with the same amount of detergent if the window is already pretty clean to begin with, right?
OK, so organic milk comes from cows that are healthier – which means less infections, less antibiotics, less hormonal stress from rBGH (and even less emotional stress for the lucky few who are allowed to go outside and graze) so there’s less nasty microbes in the milk to begin with, right? Also, since they’re fed grass instead of corn and that allows the healthy, naturally-occurring bacteria (normally wiped out by the antibiotics) of the cow’s four stomachs to do their thing, the ratio of remaining good bacteria to bad bacteria is higher, right?
So it seems to me that by starting out with healthier cows and respecting their natural digestive system, you end up with a cleaner product before you even pasteurize. I’d also guess that being made on a smaller scale (even if it’s a subsidiary of a larger industrial farm) with less focus on cost allows for the more attention to detail necessary to doing a better job – and true with just about everything, right?
@mmstk101:
Sorry. I’m a red pill kinda guy. Spend the extra dollar and tomorrow’s breakfast will taste better.
@Jaysyn:
Hi – please see my best guess to “stanfrombrooklyn.”
(I didn’t know how to respond to two people at once. Sorry!)
Monsanto is a cancer causing parasite and everyone who is involved in the manufacture of Monsatos products should spend the rest of their days eating only the chemical laden frankenfoods that have forced down the throats of the US population. This company has bribed its way to influence product safety laws and every government agency so connected so that it could continue to earn billions.
rBGH increases the risk of cancer. If you don’t believe that then by all means drink the milk. But we should all have a choice. It is banned in Europe and Canada for a very good reason. Monsanto would lose billions if it were banned here. Our government cares more about the influence of his money which he donates to every campaign than they do about the health of the people. American made cheeses are contaminated as well. The FDA trivializes the potential effects and that is disgusting. And those who fall for this propaganda need to wake up.
And lets not forget about the poor cows who are lactating 365 days a year who have an 80% incidence of mastitis and udder infections resulting in pus and contamination of milk, the need for antibiotics to treat this which also leaves a residual in the milk for human consumption.
People need to insist upon rBGH free dairy. People need to avoid all Monsanto products: Roundup Herbicide, GE rice, corn, soy and canola, Aspartame aka Nutrasweet and Equal, toxic carpeting, dioxin which was one of two chemicals in Agent Orange which is in disinfectants including in Lysol. I am sure there are more.
This company only unleashes products that kill. They cover up, bribe and are ruthless. They dominate our food supply and it is up to the consumer to say no because no one else is going to protect you from this killer.
Oh and lets not forget Saccharin was Monsantos too. And Monsanto said that was safe.
Isabelle, please stay away from slow-moving white vans while you’re out walking!
I’d also say, don’t forget about the lawsuits against farmers whose land happened to catch airborne Monsanto frankencorn, or the ridiculous seed patents, or that their corn has now infected the heirloom supplies of Mexican farmers, or their blatant disregard for the safety of kids (for so many reasons), etc…phew, lost my breath!
The fact that people are arguing FOR monsanto’s side on the consumerist sickens me. People are arguing the side of consumer deception and introduction of products that are OK’d on anti-scientific grounds.
Some things people in the real world like to call “Facts”.
Fact 1: The US is the ONLY developed country that has ok’d the use of rBST (AKA rBGH AKA posilac) and it has been banned in Canada and the EU.
Fact 2: rBST causes a otherwise rare disease in cows known as “mastitis” which increases the chances of and complicates infections in the cows udders.
Fact 3: Cows treated with rBST have trouble reproducing, have increased ovary size and other birthing difficulties.
Milk produced by cows treated with rBST has significantly more puss (as related to the mastitis infections) and typically to fight the infections it has significantly more antibiotics.
The united states is the ONLY major country that uses posilac. Everyone here arguing for it sounds like a Lobbyist or other chem industry cronie.
Please gtfo of consumer advocate groups.
I’m well sick of the american ‘innocent until proven guilty’ attitude when it’s applied to chemicals and or other scientific issues.
I want to be sure that what I am eating is safe. I don’t want the only comfort to be “well there haven’t been any human related illnesses yet”. I want the consolation to be “it’s been thoroughly tested and is safe for consumption”.
Anything that is anti-regulation is anti-science.
And with monsanto’s track record? See also: Nitro plant. Anniston plant. Agent Orange. Dioxins. PCB’s. Aspartamine. RoundUp. RoundUp Ultra sprayings in columbia. And as previously mentioned Seed patents. Transgenic contamination. Groundless law suits vs farmers. And to top it off, conflicts of interest in regards to the EPA (several employees swap between monsanto and EPA), Supreme court (Clarence Thomas) and former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld (former CEO of monsanto subsidiary).
I cant believe people on Consumerist.com are arguing for for monsanto. Please, you sound like chem industry lobbyists.
Here are some facts:
Fact 1: The US is the only developed country in the world that has ok’d the use of rBST.
Fact 2: Cows treated with rBST form mastitis far more often than cows who are not treated with it. Mastitis causes infection of the udders and results in puss entering the milk and greater reliance on antibiotics.
Fact 3: Cows treated with rBST also have more birthing difficulties and reproductive problems.
Monsanto is anti-science in the fact that it is anti regulation. Why are chemicals assumed safe until proven otherwise?
With monsanto’s track record (PCB’s, DDT, Dioxin, Agent Orange, Aspartamine, over 50 superfund sites, persecution of farmers, near monopoly in the market of seeds, applying for a patent that would grant them ownership of pigs (essentially all pigs), roundup being linked to NHL, Roundup ULTRA spraying in Colombia, Transgenic contamination and countless others) I think it’s safe to say there is no reason to trust this company and taking the stance that labeling foods as “rBGH free” is misleading is indefensible.
Implying that consumers do not have a right to know how their food is produced is ridiculous.
Monsanto = evil. I’ve been saying it for 10 yrs now. Someone please listen.
Oo! Do I get last word?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080121/sutton