I'm not the first one diarying this, but last week there were several calls for a VMD on the topic. So here it is.
According to the New York Times, Pennsylvania just banned all "rBGH-free" labels on dairy products, effective January 1, 2008. The move was taken by the state's Secretary of Agriculture, Dennis Wolff.
I promise I will abstain from any puns using the phrase "guarding the henhouse" in this diary. You'll find an action alert at the end.
Here's a blurb from the NYT article:
Late last month, Mr. Wolff announced a crackdown on "absence labeling" on milk, meaning labels that tell consumers what isn’t in a product rather than what is.
He argues that "hormone free" labels are misleading because cows produce hormones naturally. Even labels that are more carefully worded, such as "contains no artificial hormones" will soon be verboten in Pennsylvania because Mr. Wolff said that there were no scientific tests to prove the truth of such a claim.
His ban also extends to phrases like "pesticide free" and "antibiotic free," which he maintains are confusing for consumers because they suggest that milk without those labels contains pesticides or antibiotics. In fact, he said, processed milk is tested repeatedly in Pennsylvania to make sure that it doesn’t contain those substances.
"It confuses them," he said. "It seems to imply there is a safe, nonsafe dimension."
A former dairy farmer, Mr. Wolff said he decided to look into the issue after he received calls from farmers complaining that they were being forced to stop using bovine growth hormone if they wanted to continue selling their milk to certain dairies. He also said his office had received many calls from confused consumers.
Many calls? Yeah - read the next paragraph in the article.
Mr. Wolff’s office could not provide surveys or research showing that consumers were confused by the issue, and was unable to come up with even one name of a consumer who had complained.
Background: What is rBGH?
If you're not familiar with rBGH (a.k.a rBST), it's a synthetic hormone, developed by Monsanto and legalized in the U.S. in the early 1990's. It's injected into cows every 2 weeks and it boosts their milk production. It also boost production of another hormone called IGF-1.
For now, I am going to skip discussing the effects these hormones have on the cows. Suffice it to say that they have an effect (beyond boosting milk production) and you can find more info in previous diaries I've done on the subject:
This one, about Starbucks going rBGH-free
And especially this one, about leaked Monsanto documents
In humans, bovine growth hormone (real or synthetic) does nothing. IGF-1, on the other hand, DOES do something. It's identical to human IGF-1. Since people have only been drinking rBGH-laced milk for a little over a decade, it's hard to know the long-term effects (especially because humans have such complex diets and we do not live on milk alone).
So far scientists report that the use of synthetic hormones in cows leads to increases in human twinning (more people are giving birth to twins). There are also possible links to breast and colon cancer.
Current Labeling Laws for rBGH
You might've noticed when you bought milk that your label promised "No synthetic hormones" or that the milk came from cows that were not treated with synthetic hormones. The pro-industrialized-nastiness-in-our-food lobby does NOT like these labels.
As a "compromise" (ha ha), the federal government allows labels letting consumers know when milk came from cows that weren't treated with rBGH so long as they include a statement saying:
no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from (hormone)-treated and non-(hormone)-treated cows.
source
That was the result of a lawsuit Monsanto filed against a Maine dairy a few years ago when that dairy put labels on its milk saying that it was rBGH-free.
You can find a long history of news covering the labeling dispute here: http://www.purefood.org/...
So What Now?
Despite the FDA disclaimer that milk with or without Monsanto's hormones is the same, consumers prefer their milk sans synthetic hormones. Consumer pressure has driven many dairies rBGH-free. All organic milk is by definition rBGH-free, but even the conventional ones have been giving rBGH up.
A while back, Starbucks finally announced that it was going rBGH-free, although it did it in a bit of a slimy way... They got activists off their back by announcing that they WOULD do it, not that they DID do it. At that time, only Starbucks in a few states were 100% rBGH-free.
Nearly a year ago, I listened to a conversation of dairy farmers discussing a request from a film maker who wanted to interview dairy farmers on the subject of rBGH. One farmer said that pretty soon, no one near him would be using it anymore, and no one would admit that they did use it. (If I recall correctly, he followed that up with a comment about calves being born deformed.)
Well, one last thing to do then. Just make sure consumers have absolutely no way of figuring out which milk does or doesn't contain synthetic hormones. Way to go. Up until now, no labeling laws on rBGH took information away. They might have added BULLSHIT information (like the idea that milk from cows w/ or w/o rBGH is the same) but at least they let the consumer decide.
If you don't live in PA, be aware other states are watching, hoping to follow suit if this labeling ban works in PA. For example, Ohio and New Jersey.
Action
I'm including the text of an action alert I received below, but first, here's the important stuff:
#1 Thing You Can Do: Send a REAL snail mail letter to the PA state governor.
Governor Edward G. Rendell
225 Main Capitol Building
Harrisburg, PA 17102
#2 & #3 Things You Can Do: Email or call the PA governor.
http://sites.state.pa.us/...
(717) 787-2500
Sending copies of any correspondence with the governor to your local legislators would make sense as well. We’re also asking that you consider writing letters to the editors of your local papers or of the ag press (Lancaster Farming, The Farmer’s Friend, Farm & Dairy, etc...) to let people know your thoughts about this issue.
Perhaps no single issue in Pennsylvania agriculture during this first decade of the new century has run so contrary to the goals of sustainability. Sure, labels can be misleading, and we do need state leadership in deciding how they can be consistently and fairly applied. But it is simply outrageous to think that keeping consumers in the dark on important matters involving their food is the better way to go.
As always, it’s important that you individually express your opinions in ways that demonstrate the diversity and thoughtfulness of the PASA membership. But for those who want some help in formulating those thoughts, I offer the following considerations:
Animal Welfare – Cows treated with rBST have higher rates of mastitis and shorter lives in general.
Human Health – The science is inconclusive as to whether or not there are long-term negative effects on humans who consume milk from rBST-treated cows.
Freedom of Speech – Farmers need the ability to use truthful claims on labels that help them communicate with their customers and make a good living.
Consumer Information – It’s not irrelevant at all for consumers to know who uses artificial hormones and who doesn’t.
Ethical Consistency – Why are performance enhancing drugs banned in other aspects of our daily lives, but not in food production?
There are many other points that could be made, and I look forward to seeing what many of you come up with. But the important thing is that you make your voices heard right now!
Please send this action alert to your friends, neighbors, customers and any other group in Pennsylvania you can think of who might care about this issue.
Let’s enjoy this week of Thanksgiving knowing full well that food is one of our most precious resources, and that we are united in defending the integrity of how it is produced and marketed to the public.
Yours sincerely,
Brian Snyder, Executive Director
Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture (PASA)