Monsanto Lawsuit Against rBGH-Free Dairy in Maine Backfiring

Oakhurst, Monsanto Gird for Federal Court Battle
Bangor Daily News (Maine)
October 31, 2003
By: SHARON KILEY MACK

Bangor, Maine:

A trio of Monsanto representatives was in Bangor Thursday morning lobbying
on behalf of the chemical giant's federal lawsuit to force Oakhurst Dairy to
change its milk jug labels, a federal court case that will come to trial in
January.

The landmark lawsuit centers on whether - as new and controversial
ingredients enter the food supply - a producer has the right to make
truthful statements about what a product does not contain, right along with
what it does contain.

Oakhurst's label tells the truth. But Monsanto contends that, although
truthful, the label is misleading and prompts consumer skepticism that
undermines the company's lucrative markets.

Monsanto sued Oakhurst on July 3, claiming that a label on Oakhurst milk
jugs that states "Our Farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones" is
hurting the multinational chemical company's relationship with dairy farmers
and misleads consumers into thinking that there is something wrong with milk
produced with artificial hormones.

Monsanto is the only producer of Posilac, or recombinant bovine growth
hormone, a drug injected into milk cows every two weeks to boost production.
About one-third of the United States' 9 million dairy cows are given the
hormone.

Dr. Jennifer Garrett of Monsanto said Thursday that "healthy, comfortable
cows are those producing more milk. Posilac helps cows make about 1 gallon
more a day. It is a very natural process."

Opponents, however, have concerns that the artificial hormones are harmful
to cows, that they make cows produce milk that is chemically and
nutritionally different from natural milk, and that they could induce higher
rates of cancer in humans. Based on these concerns, Canada and the European
Union have banned the hormone. The United States, Mexico and Brazil are the
only countries where it is permitted.

Stanley Bennett II, president of Oakhurst, on Thursday reasserted his stand
against changing the label. "We don't feel we have any obligation, nor will
we be required or bullied into somehow qualifying our standards," he said.

"Our customers have told us in no uncertain terms that they don't want
artificial growth hormones in their milk. Our label is an accurate and
honest attempt to communicate to consumers what we are trying to do. It is
our obligation to our customers."

This is the third such suit filed by Monsanto against dairy processors
regarding labeling issues. The two other suits, one in Texas and the other
in Chicago, were settled out of court.

Although the details of those settlements are confidential, Brian Robert
Lowrey, director of industry affairs for Monsanto, said that both dairies
changed their labels after the settlement.

Many opponents of artificial growth hormones have labeled the Oakhurst
lawsuit a "David versus Goliath" battle (Monsanto had $4 billion in sales
last year, compared to Oakhurst's $85 million), one in which Monsanto hopes
to obtain a victory that would provide a precedent to fight similar labels
across the country.

Not so, the Monsanto representatives maintained. "When Oakhurst began
expanding their market into the Boston area, and only after a great deal of
consideration, we felt we had to take action," said Janice M. Armstrong,
Monsanto's director of public affairs.

Several other milk producers in New England - including Hood and Garelik -
have similar labels but are not being sued. When asked if those companies
also would be sued, Armstrong said she could not predict future litigation.

Since the suit was filed, Bennett said, his company has been inundated with
letters, e-mails and other gestures of support, and has had an increase in
sales. Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate for president in the last
election, contacted Oakhurst in August to offer free legal help through his
foundation, which supports freedom of speech.