Conventional Cheese Industry Worried over Consumer Activism re Tillamook Ban of rBGH

From: Cheese Market News March 2005

Knowing agendas of consumer advocate groups key for dairy

By Hilary Parker

WASHINGTON - Rick North celebrated with his fellow advocates when the
news broke that Tillamook Cooperative Creamery Association's (TCCA) board
of directors had voted to phase out the use of recombinant bovine growth
hormone (rBGH).

North is a project director for the Oregon chapter of the Physicians for
Social Responsibility (PSR) Campaign for Safe Foods. The campaign's mission is "to
advance the establishment of an agricultural system and food supply in
Oregon that does not use genetically-modified organisms." Specifically, one of two
goals of the campaign is to "discontinue the production of any dairy products in
Oregon from cows treated with rBGH."

His group is among many targeting dairy processors in the United States,
encouraging them only to produce products with milk from cows that have not
been treated with rBGH.

The board cited consumer questions and complaints about rBGH, a growth
hormone injected into cows to increase milk production, as the basis for its
decision. (For more information, see "Tillamook board adopts policy...," on
page 5 of the Feb. 18, 2005, issue of CMN.) According to one Portland, Ore.,
media report, more than 20 consumer advocacy groups contacted TCCA and called for
the company to drop its use of milk from cows treated with rBGH.

. Who are these people?

A quick Internet search turns up several such advocacy groups, including
TheCampaign.org, a self-described "grass roots political action"
organization whose mission statement is "to create a national grass roots consumer
campaign for the purpose of lobbying Congress and the president to pass
legislation that will require the labeling of genetically engineered foods
in the United States."

TheCampaign.org posted an "action alert" asking visitors to its site to use
its instant e-mail service to contact the TCCA regarding its policy on rBGH. The
site also lists TCCA phone and fax numbers.

Similarly, the Organic Consumers Association, whose website tagline is"Campaigning for Food Safety, Organic Agriculture, Fair Trade & Sustainability," says its campaign strategies include public education, activist networking,boycotts and protests, grass roots lobbying, media and public relations and litigation. The organization sponsors a "Protest Kraft" campaign as well asone called "Millions Against Monsanto." (Kraft Foods officials declined to be interviewed for this story.)

Organic Consumers Association's website includes messages from PSR and
also gives visitors the opportunity to contact TCCA. It lists TCCA's
complete contact information as well as several pre-worded messages from PSR that
consumers can use when contacting the company.

In speaking with Cheese Market News, North says PSR's campaign was just
one of several factors that led the TCCA board to decide to drop rBGH.
And both North and TCCA Corporate Communications Manager Christie
Lincoln are careful to say that the TCCA board had voted on this issue in
May 2004; PSR only started its heavy grass roots efforts - comprising roughly
6,500 postcards - in the fall of 2004.

They can take credit for it, Lincoln says of advocacy groups, but the
decision was made independently of the actions by the groups and had more to do with
where TCCA's marketing team sees the market heading.

Still, North had been in touch with TCCA personally in 2002 and on behalf of
PSR since October of 2003. In March of 2004, his organization began
producing and sending "hundreds" of postcards to many dairy processors in Oregon,
including TCCA. Also around this time, the group produced a consumer guide
which listed those Oregon dairy processors that did and did not accept milk
from cows treated with rBGH. This piece was mailed to "thousands" as well as made
available on the group's website.

Beginning in 2003, TCCA officials noticed that 4 percent of people who
contacted the company that year did so to inquire about its rBGH policy, up
from 3 percent in 2002. And in 2004, that number shot to 8 percent of contacts,
says Lincoln.

TCCA also has kept track of which contacts seemed to be part of an
orchestrated campaign, like PSR's postcards (which Lincoln says did not
represent the overwhelming majority of its 2004 contacts). However, TCCA
says all contacts are considered customers or potential customers.

When PSR learned a few weeks ago that the TCCA board had voted to
abandon rBGH but that Monsanto was encouraging producers to challenge the
decision, North orchestrated another push to the campaign.

"Please contact Tillamook now," North wrote to members. "We have been a
significant factor in helping Tillamook come to this point, and we can be a
significant factor in helping them stop Monsanto's attempts to reverse the
decision to go rBGH-free."

This push solicited 6,500 contacts to TCCA known to North.

"I was amazed at the quality and quantity of the responses," North says.

. What do they want?

Not all consumer advocacy groups, of course, advocate dropping rBGH. The
Center for Global Food Issues, a nonprofit organization sponsored by funding
collected by the Hudson Institute, features a Milk is Milk campaign, "a
grass roots campaign of concerned consumers, principally mothers, to educate food
and dairy retailers regarding false and misleading label and marketing
practices" including labels like "pesticide-free," "antibiotic-free" and
"hormone-free" on milk.

The Milk is Milk campaign's position on rBGH is that its use "essentially
increases the gas mileage of the agribusiness car," according to Alex Avery,
director of research and education, Center for Global Food Issues.

Avery says many consumer advocacy groups promote "romantic notions of the
way farming ought to be" that have no base in the reality of the need for
efficient production.

"It's nostalgia they're selling," he says, adding that a lot of contacts
these groups' members make within the dairy industry represent an "orchestrated,
manufactured, concocted campaign" of non-customers "who don't eat cheese -
they're just trying to create a wedge."

"These people don't like modern society," Avery says of advocates who speak
out against the use of rBGH.

But it's these contacts that create the appearance of consumer demand. Since
profit margins are very thin, companies like TCCA are worried about losing
any market share, so they capitulate, he says.

. What's a company to do?

Susan Ruland, vice president, communications and meetings, International
Dairy Foods Association, says the key thing for dairy processors to remember
when dealing with consumer advocacy groups is that they have an agenda. It
is crucial that companies understand what that agenda is, she says.

"Sometimes you think you can work with them on an issue only to discover
that they have a broader agenda that is not in the best interest of the dairy
industry," Ruland says. Some organizations, like People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA), clearly are not reliable partners at the negotiating table
because PETA's broader agenda is to stop the consumption of all animal
proteins, she says.

"In that case, there's not much point in talking," she says. "Any dairy
company has to be very careful about even talking to a group without knowing what
their broader agenda is, because a lot of times, they're being used."

Groups like PSR often want to place such strict limits on the use of
biotechnology "that you can end up throwing the baby out with the bath
water," Ruland adds.

Ruland also says she's found that rBGH often serves as a rallying point for
activist groups working toward a much broader agenda.

Agnes Schafer, vice president of communications for Dairy Farmers of America
(DFA), says her cooperative, which makes raw ingredients that often are sold
under other companies' brand names, has not been directly targeted in this
fashion.

"Knock on wood," she adds.

But companies like Tillamook that sell branded products are more likely to
be a target for consumer advocacy campaigns, she says.

Still, campaigns like this one are a big concern for the entire dairy
industry because they create confusion among customers, Schafer says.

"What's alarming is that it's based on misfact," she says. "Everybody's
trying to learn to operate in this new environment. It's a tough issue."

Ruland agrees that many consumer advocacy groups use science in a less-
than-responsible manner.

"There's a lot of generalization and using things out of context," she says.

Still, often members of the media know consumer advocacy groups are not the
most impartial sources of information, she notes.

"It's very important that we talk truthfully and accurately about these
issues," Ruland adds.

The industry needs to offer truthful and accurate information about issues
such as the use of rBGH, Ruland notes. However, "we have wonderful products that
have a stellar record for safety, wholesomeness, good taste and nutrition.

"That's what we need to focus on," she adds. "These other issues can
sidetrack
us." CMN

--
Hilary Parker
Managing Editor
Cheese Market News

765-655-2490
765-655-2491 FAX

www.cheesemarketnews.com
--