Eight months ago, Kansas was one of the battle ground states in the fight to prevent the public from knowing how their milk is produced. link After estivating a few months, the issue is back. The public hearing on this proposed legislation will be conducted at 10 a.m. Tuesday, December 2. Details below.
crossposted from unbossed
Monsanto and its astroturf groups and allies have been fighting hard to keep the public from knowing whether their milk was produced using recombinant hormones called rBST (recombinant bovine somatatrophin) or rBGH recombinant growth hormone and sold under the trade name Posilac.
Monsanto has been losing ground in the use of rBST for a number of reasons, including.
- People are concerned about the use of this product and the impact it has on their and their children's health. While Monsanto and its allies argue that the FDA found no evidence of harm to milk and dairy consumers from the product, that FDA finding was done in such a way as to raise concerns. Among the problems is its selective use of data, the presence of Monsanto officials employed by the FDA in the decision-making process at the time the decision was made, over-reliance on Monsanto financed studies.
Even if none of these problems existed the FDA decision is nearly two decades old, and the studies it relied on are even older. Scientific knowledge - especially about biology - is far more advanced than at the time.
- People are gun shy. We have had just too much experience to feel safe when products such as this have been proven over and over to be dangerous.
- There is evidence of effects on milk when rBST is used. Even though rBST has not been found in the milk of cows injected with Posilac, that hormone can have other effects. For example, IGF-1 is found in higher amounts in that milk, and it has been linked with many health problems. More study is needed, but parents are likely to be concerned about their children's health.
- People are concerned about the impact on cows and the impact on humans as a result. Cows injected with Posilac have shorter lives and far more health problems. Some of these problems have an impact on the milk. Problems include mastitis (breast infections) which has led to pus in the milk. Mastitis is life threatening, so the cows are receive antibiotics - a potential factor in increasing drug resistance.
Some people want our food animals raised humanely as an ethical matter.
These are the key reasons people want to know how their milk is produced.
Back then, the bill included two features that were strongly criticized and are now eliminated in this bill. Here is an analysis of the old version:
SB 595 bans two types of labels. The first is a label based on composition of the food product that can't be confirmed through lab analysis. There is no current commercial lab test that can detect rBGH. Therefore, this would knock out labels such as rBGH-free, rBST-free, or Does not contain artificial hormones.
The current industry standard requires that farmers sign an affidavit swearing that they don't use rBGH. The second provision in the bill knocks that out. In both instances, the bill makes an illogical leap that just because something isn't demonstrated by a lab test or is sworn to by affidavit or other sworn statement, then its misleading. This would knock out any production-related labels, such as "Our farmers pledge not to use rBGH (rBST, artificial hormones)."
. . .
Whats even more incredible about this bill is that it would appear to cover ANY food, not just dairy products. This is beyond what weve seen in bills/rules weve been fighting in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana. I'm not even sure it's intended to go that far. There are all kinds of food labels that can't be verified by lab tests state of origin, country of origin, bottled water claims (such as spring-fed or from a particular location) and (possibly) organic, to name a few.
The hearing on this bill included supporters and opponents.
It eventually went down after strong opposition.
The new bill makes it clear that it is limited to milk and not other agricultural products. Second, rather than outlawing claims that the milk was not produced using rBST, it mandates an inspection of the operation and charges the farmers for inspection. It also mandates labeling changes that will impose an additional cost on farmers.
The result may be that they will decide, as some of my local organic dairies have, that they cannot afford the costs. Remember, milk is often sold across state lines, so a label that is legal in one state may not be in another.
I have pasted in the text and notice of the new proposed regulation below, but you would have a hard time understanding what it does without background on the issue and the fight over labeling.
The Kansas Department of Agriculture "Fact Sheet" provides a clearer statement of the legislation.
If a label contains a statement indicating the milk or dairy product is free of something already prohibited by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, like antibiotics and pesticides, the label will be considered false and misleading. These statements will not be permitted. The following statements are considered false and misleading in all circumstances, and they will not be permitted:
◊ no hormone
◊ hormone free
◊ rbST free
◊ rbGH free
◊ BST free
Products that contain a production claim that "this milk is from cows not supplemented with rbST," or an equivalent statement, will be considered misleading unless:
◊ The dairy manufacturing plant owner or operator verifies the claim is accurate, that it has in its possession a milk producer’s affidavit that the milk is from cows not supplemented with rbST, and it possesses any other written records that support the claim;
◊ The label contains, on the same label panel, immediately after the production claim, and in the same font, style, case, size and color, the qualifying statement "the FDA has determined that no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbSTsupplemented and non-rbST supplemented cows."
The "fact sheet" then spouts the Monsanto party line on rBST.
Why add hormones?
All milk contains the bST hormone because all cows produce it naturally. rbST is a synthetic hormone given to cows to boost milk production. It is not added to milk. Vitamin D, however, is a hormone that has been safely used to fortify milk since the 1930s.
So stop worrying. It's all just fine according to the Kansas Department of Agriculture.
Here is a pdf of the hearing announcement.
And here is the proposed dairy labeling regulation changes in the Kansas Register, Section 1454 page 6-7.
State of Kansas - Department of Agriculture - Notice of Hearing on Proposed Administrative Regulations
A public hearing will be conducted at 10 a.m. Tuesday, December 2, in the fourth floor training room of the Kansas Department of Agriculture, 109 S.W. 9th, Topeka, to consider the adoption of a proposed regulation for the dairy program.
This 60-day notice of the public hearing shall constitute a public comment period for the purpose of receiving written public comments on the proposed rule and regulation.
All interested parties may submit written comments prior to the hearing to the Secretary of Agriculture, 109 S.W. 9th, 4th Floor, Topeka, 66612, or by e-mail at leslie.garner@kda.ks.gov. Comments also may be made through the department’s Web site, http://www.ksda.gov, under the proposed regulation. All interested parties will be given a reasonable opportunity to present their views orally on the adoption of the proposed regulation during the hearing. In order to give all parties an opportunity to present their views, it may be necessary to request that each participant limit any oral presentation to five minutes.
The regulation is proposed for adoption on a permanent basis. A summary of the proposed regulation and its economic impact follows:
K.A.R. 4-7-723. The proposed regulation is intended to provide clarification on what is false or misleading labeling as it pertains to milk and dairy products. Specifically, this proposed regulation provides guidance to the dairy industry with respect to label claims concerning the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin, commonly known as ‘‘rBST.’’
Economic impact summary: The additional record/document review in the proposed regulation would have a very minimal impact on the time required to do an inspection by the department. It is estimated that 30 minutes of inspection time would be required at each dairy manufacturing plant during its quarterly inspections; it is estimated to be an additional 20 hours per year at an average cost of $23.32 per hour or approximately $466.40.
The proposed regulation will significantly impact dairy manufacturing plants that choose to make production claims concerning rBST on their labels. Existing milk and dairy product labels that do not comply will need to be brought into compliance within the time frames specified in the regulation. The cost of new labels or new containers will vary.
• There are no direct or indirect costs for those dairy manufacturing plants whose labels are in compliance or who do not make any claims relative to rBST use.
• The cost to dairy manufacturing plants of maintaining required verification documents is minimal.
• Plants that use adhesive labels that must be changed can expect an estimated one-time cost of approximately $3,800 per product label for a typical threecolor printing plate and artwork change. This can be a significant cost for a major manufacturing plant with as many as 80 to 120 different labels.
Any existing label inventory remaining after the specified date in the regulation must be disposed of.
• Plants utilizing reusable glass bottles will need to replace their entire inventory within time frames established in the proposed regulation since label information is permanently printed on each glass container. Cost to replace glass bottles is approximately $2.50 each.
• The regulation applies to any dairy manufacturing plant offering products for sale in Kansas. The regulation applies to both in-state and out-of-state plants.
Any individual with a disability may request accommodation in order to participate in the public hearing and may request the proposed regulation and economic impact statement in an accessible format. Requests for accommodation should be made at least five working days in advance of the hearing by contacting Leslie Garner at (785) 296-4623 or fax (785) 368-6668. Handicapped parking is located at the southwest corner of 9th and Kansas Ave., and the north entrance to the building is accessible to individuals with disabilities.
Copies of the regulation and its economic impact statement may be obtained by contacting Leslie Garner at the contact information above or by accessing the department’s Web site at http://www.ksda.gov.
Adrian J. Polansky
Secretary of Agriculture
And for those of you who made it this far, here is the First Amendment view from Ben & Jerry's.
By the way, Monsanto announced in August it is selling Posilac to Elanco a/k/a Eli Lilly. link But the campaign lives on.