Search OCA:
Get Local!

Find Local News, Events & Green Businesses on OCA's State Pages:

OCA News Sections

Ben & Jerry's Opposes Monsanto's Move in Several States to Ban rBGH-Free Labels

from the Minneapolis Star Tribune

MONTPELIER, Vt. - Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc., one of the first companies to label its ice cream as free of a synthetic hormone, is protesting a move by some states to restrict such labeling.

The South Burlington ice-cream maker has joined a national campaign to block what critics say is an effort driven by Monsanto Co., which markets recombinant bovine somatotropin, or rBST, also known as recombinant bovine growth hormone, or rBGH.

"We're very concerned about, from a primary standpoint, the freedom of speech to be able to put what we believe is truthful and appropriate messaging on our packaging," said Rob Michalak, a spokesman for Ben & Jerry's, which has mounted a campaign to get consumers on its side.

But a newly formed farmers' group, backed by Monsanto, is pushing for labeling changes, saying the hormone-free labels imply that the milk is safer than other milk, when they say it's not.

"There's no question that rBST is safe. ... That's what's so frustrating to us, that there are organizations out there that would indicate that it's something other than safe," said Carrol Campbell, a Kansas dairy farmer who co-chairs American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology, the new group.

He says they aren't out to take choices away from consumers. They just want them to know that whatever choice they make, it's the same, nutritious, wholesome product, he said.

Monsanto, a corporate sponsor of the group, says it's a question of accuracy in labeling.

"Monsanto is really an advocate in support of accurate labeling of dairy products in the dairy case," said Monsanto spokeswoman Lori Hoag.

Others say consumers have a right to know what is and isn't in their food.

The hormone, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration to boost production in dairy cows in the early 1990s, was not approved in Canada, Japan or the European Union, largely out of concerns it may be harmful to animals.

And "there are unanswered human questions with it. It probably should never have been approved," said Michael Hansen, a senior scientist with Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports.

"As people worry about food they eat, the demand has increased," he said.

The use of the artificial hormones increases the levels of another growth hormone in cows, said Rick North, a spokesman for Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, a leading critic of rBGH. Elevated levels of that hormone in humans promote cancer, he said.

"There is not absolute proof that shooting cows up with rBGH is increasing cancer rates in humans, however, there is a significant amount of scientific data that is pointing in that direction and our stance is better safe than sorry. That this is an unnecessary risk," said North.

So far, efforts to ban hormone-free labeling have stalled.

Pennsylvania, the nation's fifth-largest dairy state, banned the hormone-free labeling in October, but later rescinded the ban.

Last week, an Indiana lawmaker pulled legislation that would have made it illegal to label dairy products as free of artificial growth hormone, since there's no test to determine if the hormone was used. He said there was too much controversy about the labeling issue and that legislators needed more time to study it.

Ohio has held hearings on the issue, and the state's agriculture director is expected to issue a decision early this year on dairy labeling.

Under FDA guidelines, companies are allowed to claim that their milk comes from cows that were not treated with rBGH, as long as the labels do not "mislead consumers" to believe the milk is safer or better.

Ben & Jerry's packaging says "the FDA has said no significant difference has been shown and no test can now distinguish between milk from rBGH treated and untreated cows."

In August, federal regulators rejected a request from Monsanto Co. to take action against dairy companies that advertise milk as free of synthetic hormones.

Campbell says he fears rBST-free milk could lead to crackdowns on the use of technology on the farm.

"We need to stand up for our technology or we're going to lose it," he said.

Ben & Jerry's, which first stamped its ice cream as rBGH-free more than a decade ago, has mounted a campaign aimed at marshaling its consumers to get involved. On its Web site, the company, which was bought by the Dutch conglomerate Unilever in 2000, uses illustrations of dairy cows with signs hung around their necks saying `rBGH Free, that's me!'

It urges consumers to contact dairy companies and ask them for rGBH labeling.

"From the outset, when rBGH was approved, we wanted to make sure that we were able to tell that message on our packing that the family farmers that provide our dairy have pledged to not use rBGH," Michalak said. "We thought it was a very important message."

© 2008 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.

For more information on this topic or related issues you can search the thousands of archived articles on the OCA website using keywords:

post Feb 8 2008, 12:04 AM

I cannot believe all these states are actually even considering banning the right to place "rBGH-free" labeling on milk. This is the most absurd thing I have heard lately regarding the whole natural vs. synthetic issue.

This is absolute violation of freedom of speech in my opinion. If that passes, where does it end? "You can't say that your product is new and improved now because that would imply that other products are inferior...or, you can't say that your product doesn't contain pthalates or Bisphenol-A because the FDA doesn't regard these as dangerous"

Companies should be allowed to place any info on their products they damn well please as long as it's truthful.

Just another fine example of Big Corporation's influence over our government.

Who's running this country again?

post Feb 8 2008, 12:20 AM

Yep, corporations.

Unless we stand up and build ourselves a real democracy. Hey, there's an idea! Count me in. smile.gif --diana

post Feb 9 2008, 12:00 AM

QUOTE (diana @ Feb 7 2008, 07:20 PM) *
Yep, corporations.

Unless we stand up and build ourselves a real democracy. Hey, there's an idea! Count me in. smile.gif --diana

Yep, I agree. The sad thing is a lot of people don't see it. Or they don't care. It's a great strategy, really. (For the CEOs and board members anyway). Millions of the population work for these large corporations. The corporations pay them just enough to keep them quiet, while the CEOs are raking in exponentially larger salaries every year, and providing us with crappy products made in sweatshops overseas, and providing crappy service from call centers overseas. But hey, it's cheap, right!

It's kind of in line with the 5 Percenters' philosophy:

The country is run by 10% of the people who control the rest of the people.
85% of the people go with the flow, do as they're told and put up with the current state of affairs - they either don't know what's going on or don't care.
5% of the people are really paying attention to what's going on and try to alert the other 85% that they're getting shafted.

At least it has gotten bad enough lately that there are glimpses of people starting to wake up. Thanks Bush, you really know how to get people paying attention! Guess ya screwed everyone over a little too much, huh? Ya got greedy and careless and three fourths of the country is on to your dirty tricks!

Hopefully the world will breathe a collective sigh of relief as Bush makes his exit.

Good Riddance!

the carpenter
post Feb 9 2008, 06:59 AM

I this not an infrigment of the constitution. I mean that whole freedom of speech might be overrated. I would love to hear the reasoning behind it but most of our political official don't even bother to lie to us anymore (saves valuable time) tongue.gif