First the dairy industry took TB and listeria out of my milk, and now this?

"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."

Bullshit. Just stop it, Chris. There is no test for rBGH, and if there was, they would not test every cow. What if there is contamination in the water supply, and the cows drink it? What if the feed they eat was grown in manure from cows treated with rBGH, and thus the cows ingest some? They aren't rBGH-free, now are they? 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.

You *can* say the cows were not "treated" or "intentionally supplied" with artificial hormones, but that's it. As always, it's nearly impossible to prove a negative, and rBGH and rBST-free is the same deal. Sure, I'm sure the big dairies don't mind it hurts the organic guys, but stop with the tinfoil hat bullshit. Please.

AGAIN - rBST-FREE CANNOT BE PROVEN, THEREFORE CANNOT APPEAR ON THE LABEL.

I understood that the growth hormone given to cows was chemically identical to that which is produced naturally. So to say milk is BGH-free doesn't make sense.

It's like labeling genetically modified crops.

Funny how Big Business is all about unfettered capitalism and the Magic of the Marketplace, until it involves sensible labeling that allows consumers to make an informed, personal choice.

@terekkincaid: I call astroturfing. Go back to K street. Stop with the FUD.

Even organics allow some incedental amount of non-organic. If they don't feed it to them intentionally or essentially create a r-BGH rich environment by surrounding them with the stuff, the biomagnification required to give them more than a sub-trace amount rBGH to be measured would be huge.

@terekkincaid: It should be a given at this point—we've discussed it here and it's been printed up hundreds of times in the media—that rBGH doesn't end up in the milk supply. The label "rBGH-free" is marketing shorthand for a much longer phrase: this milk comes from cows who are not treated with synthetic growth hormone to deliberately increase their dairy production.

Consumers may gravitate toward "rBGH-free" labeling because they're afraid of technology, they're against Monsanto's business practices, they're against manipulating livestock hormonally, or they just like the idea of making a lifestyle choice to only buy "organic" crap. The phrase "rBGH-free" signals to those consumers that the synthetic hormone isn't part of the process. Your bigger argument--that it could be everywhere and is therefore moot--is completely indefensible at the macro level: some dairies deliberately use it and some don't, and the ones who don't would like to capitalize on that to realize whatever market advantage can be gained by it.

Now about the "rBGH-free" phrase: it's a silly phrase because as you all-caps shouted, the hormone doesn't show up in any tests on milk that comes from rBGH-treated cows; all milk is free of rBGH. But the label serves as an effective shorthand for a consumer because it signals immediately the nature of how the milk is produced.

You can fight to clarify the message, fine, but this and the attempts in Kansas and Pennsylvania are attempts to use the law to give an unfair advantage to dairies that use Monsanto's hormone. If the rBGH-using dairies and people like you are so upset that people don't like the idea of synthetic hormones, then start putting together PR campaigns to convince consumers it should be accepted. Don't use regulatory obstacles to try to unbalance the playing field.

And don't write that it's "bullshit" or "tinfoil hat" nonsense. That's marketing spin, that's you trying to disrupt the real argument by framing it in a way that suits your agenda.

Humans also make testosterone in their bodies, but we don't call weightlifters who use steroids "natural", now do we?

Same goes with cows. Yes, they produce growth hormones as they grow. Thanks for pointing that out, Doctor Sherlock. No, it's not "natural" to start doping them up with loads of extra hormone.

I want milk from regular old cows. Not cows that have been juiced, treated, pumped up and artificially inflated with stuff that reduces the cow's quality of life (and quality of MILK) through over-milking and freakish infections, and puts stuff that I don't know WHAT it's going to do to me into MY FOOD SUPPLY.

GTFO OF MY FOOD, CHEMICAL JUNKY.

@glater: I agree with you 100%. There is no need to treat these animals. Evolution has put them where they need to be, who should we mess with that? Also its not like the price of milk will go down. Its only going up so why as a consumer would I ever want the milk thats coming from possibly freakish cows when I could get milk from "normal" cows for the same price?

I'm buying the milk. I would rather buy a milk from cows that have not been treated with the hormone. I want the label to tell me this. Monsanto can rot.

I understand what the dairies that choose not to use hormones in their cows want to capitalize on that. And I also fully realize that the hormone producers like Monsanto are pushing these laws because they have everything to gain by diminishing the value of a food process that doesn't introduce additional hormones (bought from Monsanto of course).

But as a consumer, I'm a bit put off by companies that want to put ominous labels like "rBGH-free", like that means something terribly important to your health, and not explain it on the label somewhere.

Mind you, I don't agree with this new Ohio law.

Perhaps instead of worrying about the label, they should put something in large-ish letters on the side or back panel that says (for instance) "We produce this milk differently than other dairies. To find out why this matters, go to www.no-rBGH.com (or whatever)."

Frankly I think this whole battle is a waste of time and resources on both sides. {dons flame-retardant suit}.

two words:

SOY MILK.

Freedom of information is good last time I looked.

@lookatmissohio: I was just thinking that. Granted, I still eat yogurt and cheese, but you know, one step at a time.

But what about FREEDOM OF SPEECH ???

Maybe I don't understand USA's legislation. How can they forbid it?
(I mean, they can amend labels, to explain in more details what exactly it means, but how can government forbid it?)

In the case of doping, it is possible to prove a negative, viz., the lack of treatment, as evidenced by records showing that one's cows aren't pumped up with a quasi-sex hormone that increases lactation, and/or by blood and other tests. It is odd to me how so many people give such weight, credence and support to the desires of business to do as they wish, but they don't respect the rights of consumers to take steps to look after themselves. It's as if business's perogatives were somehow more honorable than citizens's. Such a strange idea that business should be able to operate independently of the wishes of the very people who buy and rely on their goods and services.

This is the most depressingly cynical political act I've read about all year. That politicians can be so blatantly, transparently in the pockets of lobbyists and corporations just makes me want to throw up.

@chuckecheese: "It's as if business's perogatives were somehow more honorable than citizens's."

Yep. I'm a liberal precisely because I believe that people have consciences and should be allowed to exercise them, and corporations don't and can't.

@Victo: Product labels are advertising, not speech. Any nut can stand on the street corner and yell that if you don't wear a tinfoil hat, the government will control your thoughts. But if someone sells a tinfoil hat and says "It prevents the government from controlling your thoughts" then that goes from speech to advertising, and likely deceptive advertising at that.

I'm not saying that the "rBGH-free" dairies are deceptive. But it's the same reason that their labels are regulated.

@lookatmissohio: One word: VOMIT. Stuff is so gross I cant even keep it down.

This is why you DONT vote democrat in a farming state.

Strickland has approved some dumb laws since he has come in that majorly hurts farms, food production, and the rural area in general. Not to mention the ton of other big brother laws passed on his watch that effect the whole state.

I think I like things better when we had a republican gov'r and a democrat house....nothing ever got done and things stayed as they had been for years.

One solution: come up with a trademarked logo and phrase, something like "Natural Process" for example, and band together with all the other dairies that don't use rBGH to create what's basically an industry-wide seal of approval. Avoid the rBGH discussion altogether by creating a seal that communicates to shoppers, "This product was produced without the addition of synthetic hormones or blah blah blah."

@Victo: You ask a good question. Freedom of speech died in this country many years ago, as houses were built close enough together that we could actually hear each others' speech. We decided we didn't like what we heard.

Seriously though. Freedom of speech has always been constrained by other legitimate social needs. Food labeling is one of these places. Food manufacturers have long been curtailed by the gummint when their packaging made false and exaggerated claims. The food mfg & distribution industries have long been in favor of preventing the labeling of food with objective information, such as ingredient & allergen lists and nutritional data. They are in favor of labeling requirements when those requirements allow them to say things that will make their products more appealing, whether or not the package statements are true.

rBGH is a perfect example of this. Many consumers dislike the idea of drinking milk that was goaded into production by hormones. Some dairies decided to abstain from these drugs, and they said so on their labels. There is a slight financial benefit (for producers) to using these drugs, and the companies that did use them didn't want to face rejection in the marketplace. Solution? Censor rBHG labeling from packaging so people cannot make an informed choice.

All of the pseudo-scientific babble and political haranguing you read about or hear about is really just white noise to cover up the sound of back-room dealing and the jingle of favors being exchanged. It is not germane to the problem at hand. The creation of a law such as this is a perfect example of corrupt politicians being firmly in the greasy hands of corporations.

@Chris Walters: This is exactly how Kosher food is marked in America. The FDA and states do not (and probably can not) regulate what is considered Kosher because the various Kosher food organizations set their standards, and when the food makers meet those standards, they are granted a license to put that Kosher food organization's trademarked symbol on their packaging.

@Chris Walters: Could they call it Organic? Oh wait, the FDA lets you put Organic on just about anything these days, anyways.

Sounds like a major First Amendment case will come out of this idiocy!

@BannedbyChris-Thanks: well actualy they can test the cows milk for excess levels of BST (I think)

@parad0x360: I understand your point, but it is naive to think that that there has been no engineering in rBGH-free cows. Evolution has not adapted cows to their present circumstances, people have forced them into the adaptation through selective breeding and by feeding them with a type and level of nutrition the cows would never have received if left to their own devices.

I am not against the use of rBGH, but I understand that some consumers are against it and may want to pay more for milk from untreated cows even if there is no verifiable difference in healthfulness. My concern is that , rather than simply responding to people's fears, rBGH-free dairy operators will feed the fear.

@Greasy Thumb Guzik: Commercial speech is not protected.

so, what is this fine print and where can we find it?
Neither the article above nor the source article mention what this horrible text is.

That tells me that it's either so huge it's not worth printing, or that it's so inconsequential that this is really no big deal.

@Greasy Thumb Guzik: So your mortgage broker tells you that you can always refi this loan before the teaser rate resets, and that's predatory lending, not free speech. But label regulations are free speech. Huh?

My point is, you can't have it both ways. There's no difference between a salesman selling you a bill of goods and a product label selling you a bill of goods. You can't regulate the bad guys and give the good guys free reign. The government can't tell the difference.

@nequam: Not exactly - commercial speech *is* protected like just any other speech. What the First Amendment doesn't protect is the freedom to defraud.

It's the old yelling-"fire"-in-a-crowded-theater - you have every right to say the word "Fire", but you don't have the right to cause a stampede.

@BannedbyChris-Thanks:

Yes, we cannot prove that you don't have a intelligent thought.

@BannedbyChris-Thanks: How about "unrBGHed"?

I guess I don't really care about this issue.
I tried... but ::shrug::

rboggs@agri.ohio.gov
ted.strickland@governor.ohio.gov

@KogeLiz: watch a documentary like"The Future of Food" and you just might start caring.

I noticed an interesting label on domestic Trader Joe's cheeses today: it was an "rBGH-free" label, with a disclaimer that there is no proof that rBGHs cause any health issues (can't remember the exact phrasing). Is this a result of regional distribution?

They claim there is "no difference' between milk from natural cows and milk from cows treated with their laboratory products, but in reality treatment with the artificial hormones raises (anywhere from 25-400% more) I-GF1, a related hormone which interferes in normal Insulin reactions in the body producing all sorts of health malfunctions such as metabolic syndrome, insulan resistance, even breast cancer in both women and men. These levels are easily detectable and of course Monsanto never tests for them.

Monsanto is a dangerous, greedy company and all their products should be avoided like the plague they are.

FWIW, try making yogurt at home with milk from rGBH cows...then try making it with milk from non rGBH cows. The non-rGBH yogurt takes forever to form, and when it does, it's usually spoiled by that time. That right there is evidence enough for me that "treated" milk has something in it that causes above average growth rates of organisms - something that I would rather not have in my body.

@Chris Walters:

Well said.

@LUV2CattleCall:

A single "experiment" done in an uncontrolled environment does not trump real scientific evidence.

I'm all for banning rBGH when there's evidence of serious health risks - but none has been shown. Not even evidence of minor health risks.

I'm not for legislation such as this, however. I have no problem with the "...has not been shown..." disclaimer being required, but saying that they can't market products without rBGH as not including it seems wrong.

That said, the labels, even with the disclaimers, are anti-science, much like the "organic" and "no GM" labels are anti-science. You can feel free to be crazy and pay markedly higher prices for such foods, but the fact of the matter is that we NEED these new growing methods to feed the world's ever-growing population.

@Chris Walters:

Oh, and anti-rBGH and anti-GM really are both "tinfoil hat nonsense." They're just not harmful until, say, starving third-world nations are scared into not accepting millions of tons of food.

@KogeLiz:

You might care if you stop to think about how much PUS you like in your milk!

The pus (or "somatic cell count") is in the milk because of the rBGH causes a painful, infected pus-covered inflammation of the cow's udders and guess where the pus goes? Right into the milk, the cheese, iced cream etc., etc., etc.

So there's an additional animal cruelty issue (it is VERY painful to the cows] and outright disgusting issue for people to consider.

BTW, have you tasted organic milk? It's delicious!

@RvLeshrac:

Oh, my bad. I misread and thought they'd passed a banned-labelling law.

I completely and wholly support this particular law. "rBGH-free" and "rBST-free" labels simply fool the consumers into thinking that these products are "safer" than other products.

It is no better than selling homeopathic drugs - such as Head On - and placing "No side effects!" on the label without also mentioning that there aren't any provable effects at all.

Unless you're perfectly fine with scaring/tricking consumers into paying a premium for products which have no benefits.

@nygenxer:

You're only half-right. I'm not going to bother going into great detail, as every agricultural school across the country has done studies on SOCC and published the results, but the gist of it is this:

-Somatic cells are present in ALL milk, regardless of the animal (humans, too), and regardless of the conditions. "Organic"/rBGH/rBST-free milk is NOT free of SOCs. "Organic" milk may actually have HIGHER SOCCs due to the non-use of antibiotics.

-The FDA requires that SOC testing be done on ALL milk to ensure that the SOCC remains at a tolerable level.

While we're on the subject of food safety... if SOCC bothers you, you should refrain from ever eating any products which contain grains, fruit juices, berries, or meats. All of them contain various small organisms (insects/bugs, I'm not talking microorganisms), molds, etc.

And definitely refrain from ever eating cheeses. They spend the majority of their aging encased in mold. Not to mention that, well, the edible part is all mold, too.

@humphrmi: The only problem with your suggestion (which was a good one, by the way) is that I don't usually carry a laptop with me inside the grocery store. ;-)

Food labels should be clear and concise. Clothing labels tell you where the clothes were made and their fabric content, and they only go on your body. Food should be labeled just as clearly.

@RvLeshrac: I'm glad you're not in charge of food safety if you really accept the "scientific studies" (funded by the same corporation that is seeking to make a profit) as being inherently honest!

No one alive today can be ignorant of the harmful effects of conflicts of interest, nor of products first thought to be harmless but later found to be harmful. There's just too many to list.

You say: "I'm all for banning rBGH when there's evidence of serious health risks - but none has been shown."

How do you define "serious health risks" where public health is concerned? What compelling reasons do you to convince me that this is so vital that we need to experiment with this on my family? In America don't we have the choice to NOT take part of an experiment, or to decide how and what I feed my family?

I question the judgement of anyone willing to risk public health when the only possible benefit is to Monsanto's shareholders.

Bottom line: the public doesn't want to be experimented on, and we have a right to know about our food!

That's it. End. Of. Discussion.

@RvLeshrac:

"-Somatic cells are present in ALL milk, regardless of the animal (humans, too), and regardless of the conditions. "

Yes, there is a difference between suckling nutrition from a healthy mammalian breast as opposed to a one covered in pus. Which teat would you prefer your children to feed from?

"-The FDA requires that SOC testing be done on ALL milk to ensure that the SOCC remains at a tolerable level."

Yes, that's what we're discussing: "tolerable levels." Minimizing the amount of pus you eat is a good thing because the pus isn't removed from the milk, it's just neutralized (so you're still drinking it). Also, the higher the pus count, the more antibiotics are fed to the cow...which is also bad.

And then "RvLeshrac" COMPLETELY changes subject for the rest of his comment, talking about insects/bugs, molds and cheesemaking.

This is the hallmark of somebody who completely lost an argument and is out of things to say.

@nygenxer: um, so I almost threw up just now.

"pus" is probably one of the grossest words ever.

Monsanto hates babies.

Beyond the increased pus factor treated milk has excessive levels of IGF-1. That can increase all sorts of problems including cancer.
[www.organicconsumers.org]

I drink organic or no rbst milk mainly because those are the only types of milk that don't make my throat irritated and full of mucous. I thought I had developed a milk allergy until we switched to rbst free organic and I didn't have the reaction.

I also have issue with the cruelty factor of jamming cows full of synthetic hormones.

Bottom line is this is my educated choice to make and I want this information on milk labels.

Monsanto can DIAF.

I would fully support the label change under one condition: Monsanto and other companies have to add a label stating our cows are given synthetic hormones. That would be fair