Ben & Jerry's Fights For Labeling Rights

States, Industry Challenge Ice Cream Maker's Right To Advertise As Synthetic Hormone-Free

(AP)  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."

[feelfree1]

Monsanto is among a handful of pesticide spewing, Franken-food growing agri-terrorists, that pose a real potential hazard of destroying our entire food supply.

This horrific corporation is a clear and present threat to the human race, and they are a perfect example of a corporation whose assets should be seized, liquidated, and used to form a fund to help mitigate some of the damage that they have done.

www.percyschmeiser.com

[feelfree1]

I think that is important to applaud corporations when they do something good, so, well done, Ben and Jerry''s.

[feelfree1]

What kind of an authoritarian society have we devolved into, when a business doesn''t even have the right to place truthful, pro-consumer health related information, on their own labels?

How does Monsanto''s right to give people cancer with their puss-laden carcinogenic milk, outweigh the public good in this matter?

[thee0racle]

tell the people what''s in or on their food and let them decide if they want to eat it or not. Irradiation, GMOs, injections, additives, coatings, etc. What is the FDA for, anyway?

[mainemade]

It is clear that "Freedom of Speach" clearly doesn''t apply to advertising. Heaven forbid anyone offend drugged up cows!

As an ice cream consumer I want to know what is or isn''t in my ice cream. I purchase tons of Ben and Jerry''s a year for the fact that it is excellent ice cream and I LOVE the "advertising" on the back of the container.

Fight the Fight Ben and Jerry''s for us who consume it is worth it!

[adasher1]

I assume Ben and Jerry''s does not contain rocks. Could they write that on their package? I assume it does not contain chicken. Could they write that on their package? I assume it does not contain dust from mars. Could they write that? Since it does not contain this drug, could they write that? Take money OUT of politics and this type of senseless issue would not come up.

[excoachken]

I have never forgiven Ben and Jerry''s for dropping "Rain Forest Crunch" as a flavor. It was the very best ice cream. Therefore, I vote for Monsanto. Of course I could be bribed to change my vote, just like your typical Republican Congressman.

[hypnotoad72]

Ben and Jerry can go back to smoking pot for all I care. Their fattening dessert product with stupid names costs enough as it is; they''ve got the funds to do the paperwork and do not need to beg we, the paupers, to do their work for them.

[displeased]

If Ben & Jerry can''t label their product to be rBGH free, then the other products should be forced to label they contain it. rBGH may be safe but it''s not natural. It''s sort of like partially hydrogenated oil. Moderate use won''t kill me but I still want to know which products contain it so I can avoid them.

[usbrit-2009]

I''m not a big fan of Monsanto (check out what they did in Anniston AL for example) and, as a chemist rather than a biochemist I can''t comment on rBGH. What I can comment on, having spent 30 years in the chemical industry, is that the public''slack of knowledge of chemistry and science in general is frightening. Just one example: Feelfree - do you use something called Round-Up in your back yard? Round-Up (glyphosate) is a Monsanto product. It protects all types of crops (and your grass and flower borders) from weeds. It is probably responsible for bread not being 20% higher in cost. Not all chemicals are bad, and since everything, including you and me, is made of chemicals, they''re going to be around as long as mankind is and beyond.

[tail_honcho]

GO BEN AND JERRY''s!!!! Support our freedoms and continue to make the best ice cream on the planet! I like to know what is in my food, thus I can make the CHOICE.

[hungry1968]

Take money OUT of politics and this type of senseless issue would not come up.

Posted by adasher1 at 07:23 AM : Feb 05, 2008




You''re absolutely right. Monsanto SHOULD NOT be pushing for laws restricting free speech. If they''re allowed to restrict the labeling of an unrelated company, then what''s next?

I for one, WILL NOT eat anything that I know contains these potentially dangerous hormones. And with the billions of dollars cut back in research money to the FDA, USDA, etc by the Bush administration, it''s highly unlikely that full and thorough testing was done.

Private industry SHOULD NOT have as much influence in our government as they do.

[feelfree1]

Clarification-

Should be:

Re: "Not all chemicals are bad, and since everything, including you and me, is made of chemicals, they''re going to be around as long as mankind is and beyond."

So you reckon that spraying some plutonium on your lettuce is fine with you, so long as you get a 20% savings on your grocery costs out of it?

[hungry1968]

Not all chemicals are bad, and since everything, including you and me, is made of chemicals, they''''re going to be around as long as mankind is and beyond.

Posted by USBrit at 09:11 AM : Feb 05, 2008





Shouldn''t it be MY choice whether I want to eat products with these hormones in them? I don''t want to eat them, and if Ben and Jerry''s wants to proudly advertise that they don''t use them, then they should be able to.

If the issue was Ben and Jerry''s taking out massive advertising campaigns claiming these hormones are unsafe, then that''s one thing. But this is referring to labeling WHAT IS AND ISN''T INSIDE THE Ben and Jerry''s product - nothing more.

[usbrit-2009]

Feelfree - Actually plutonium is very expensive so if you sprayed it on your lettuce the price would go up!!! (LOL) So I guess you''re an organics only guy. That''s fine with me - everyone to their own. All I''m saying is don''t believe all the bad you read about chemicals used in the environment. The people who write most of those stories have as much to gain from their propaganda as the chemical companies do.

[hungry1968]

So I guess you''''re an organics only guy. That''''s fine with me - everyone to their own. All I''''m saying is don''''t believe all the bad you read about chemicals used in the environment. The people who write most of those stories have as much to gain from their propaganda as the chemical companies do.

Posted by USBrit at 09:39 AM : Feb 05, 2008





I''m not an organics guy - I''m a free speech guy. And I also believe that products should be thoroughly tested BY THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT agencies - NOT just the manufacturing company.

AND no company should have as much power or influence over government as Monsanto clearly does.

[tail_honcho]

hungry1968 - well written reply. The law states what information/ingredients must be provided about products at a minimum... many companies go beyond that requirement because they put the extra cost into the quality of their product and they should be able to advertise that point.

[antoniof123]

How much to you want to bet that Monsanto donates to the RNC and that they will get the Republican congress people to do something.

Of course 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."

Could it be that after the Republican damage to the FDA that Americans no longer trust the right wing of the FDA to make certain that our products are safe.

I stand with Ben and Jerry on this issue, Monsanto is grasping for straws because they realize they don''t have as good a product.

[usbrit-2009]

hungry1968 - yes it should be your choice. I just have a problem with the "all chemicals are bad" crowd.

[feelfree1]

USBrit,

Re: "All I''m saying is don''t believe all the bad you read about chemicals used in the environment."

O.K. but I really, really dislike Monsanto, and see products like their "terminator" technology crops as a real treat to us.

Check out what Monsanto is putting this poor farmer through:

www.percyschmeiser.com

[feelfree1]

Correction:

Re: "O.K. but I really, really dislike Monsanto, and see products like their "terminator" technology crops as a real treat to us."

That should be THREAT, not treat.

[hungry1968]

hungry1968 - yes it should be your choice. I just have a problem with the "all chemicals are bad" crowd.

Posted by USBrit at 09:46 AM : Feb 05, 2008




But how can it be my choice if Monsanto is refusing to allow Ben and Jerry''s to PROPERLY label their product with the accurate contents of the packaging?

And who in the hell is Monsanto to get these kinds of laws passed in the first place? What is this --- communist Russia?

[usbrit-2009]

hungry - I was referring to feelfree as the organics guy. I am all for freedom of speech and proper labelling. The FDA usually doesn''t do a bad job, however in one respect they are useless. That is the "dietary supplement" area. No regulations on contents or claims on these critters, yet it''s a multi-billion dollar industry frequented by the people most likely to choose organics only foods. Strange.

[hungry1968]

The FDA usually doesn''''t do a bad job, however in one respect they are useless. That is the "dietary supplement" area. No regulations on contents or claims on these critters, yet it''''s a multi-billion dollar industry frequented by the people most likely to choose organics only foods. Strange.

Posted by USBrit at 09:51 AM : Feb 05, 2008




We definitely agree on that.

[usbrit-2009]

Feelfree - I''ll do a little research on "Terminator" and get back to the blog in around an hour. First hits on Google are all articles decrying the idea, and my first impression is that "it don''t sound good."

[adasher1]

Go to the WWW site called opensecrets.org and type
Monsanto in the search and SEE where the money goes. They are smart because they give to both parties but fully ninty percent is to the Reps.

It is sick that money does this. It is also sick that we vote party in this country instead of sense. We should blame ourselves for these issues, not corporate America. They are simply doing what comes naturally to us all, to wit, putting greed before anything else.

I will say it again....take the money OUT of politics and we would not have this problem. Oh, and VOTE with your head, not because your parents were dem or rep or because you like how someone looks or talks. Use your heads America....this is not a football game.

[feelfree1]

USBrit,

Re: "The FDA usually doesn''t do a bad job..."

No. They do a god awful job, and function primarily as a tool of big corporate interests. This article is a good example of that.

Another good example is when Donald "War Criminal" Rumsfeld used it to ram aspartame poison down our throats.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8N0z8stino

[smiley676]

I don''t think that all chemicals are bad. But I also don''t think everything is consistently tested enough before it goes on the market. I don''t like growth hormones, they are too much like steroids. But that''s a personal choice.

First, I think that in the freedom of speech sense, they should be allowed to put hormone free labeling on their products. Regardless of whether it is harmful, everyone has the right to choose.

However, there is no test to prove what they are saying is true, so anyone could put that on their label. The states probably have the police power to protect their citizens from misleading labels. But it should be more restricted than a ban on the label entirely.

I think a complete ban on the label would be yet another example of the government supporting business. But I do think that there should be accountability for companies that use the label.

[battleroaron]

if it is not natural it should be made apparent on the label. if it is a synthetic hormone ,or whatever it may be, it should be mandatory to be on the label. we have a right to know what big business is putting in our food.

[battleroaron]

it should be mandatory to label anything not natural in foods. if it is synthetic, than we have a right to know. alot of us don''t trust the FDA''s test results and would rather know when we are eating synthetic goods,lol.we have a right to know what big business is putting in our food.

[republic1776]

Government SHOULD NOT be involved in this.
As long as false claims are not made.
It''s none of their f-ing busniess!

[kennedy7955]

rBGH and all hormones, genetically modified foods should be banned. I suspect these compounds are responsible for the epidemics of asthma, allergies and perhaps even diabetes. Europe which has banned these substances does not have these problems at epidemic levels.

Monsanto should be more concerned with the lawsuits and criminal charges that will occur should it be proven that their rBGH is the cause of these diseases. I wouldn''t b surprised if they had secret research already establishing a link.

The FDA is not doing their job and the proof is tht most countries have banned these substances from their food supply and the USA has not. Could it be that Europe got it wrong and the USA got it right? I doubt it -and even if the opposite becomes true, we will not be the country that sided cautiously.

[godseyesore-2009]

What? Can''t print the truth on the label?
Monsanto is just more corporate spin...just what we need in these ''shrubby'' times.

[ne_patriot7]

" 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."

Duh... so what''s the problem Monsanto... what could be more accurate in the labeling than stating "this product is made with dairy products that have NOT been treated with BST".. Sounds pretty accurate and truthful to me..

Oh, one other point... 50 years ago smoking was considered to be safe along with many solvents used in manufacturing processes.. the same solvents that are now banned because they cause cancer.. Point is, no one knows the "LONG TERM" effects of exposure to such chemicals, so the only safe route is to not expose yourself to those chemicals.

[republic1776]

Ok for Wine to say "No Sulfates"

[sioux4life1]

Monstanto HUH? Better living thru chemistry. Doubt that very much. Has anyone see the movie "The Corporation" Want to find out about cows and hormones? How cows are injected with growth homomes to produce more milk and they suffer. See it for yourselves.

[awoloilman]

Would you expect any less from the company responsible for Agent Orange?

[gershom2-2009]

Body by Monsanto.

[T2_Squared]

Growth hormones, irradiated food, genetically modified foods, cloned meat - the giant corporations and giant agri-business companies would all have you as an unwilling participate in the great modified, frankenfoods experiment. They want to keep this information from you & keeping you in the dark.

I for one will continue to try and eliminate such foods from my diet and will continue to say that the FDA and other governmental bodies should stop being the lap dogs of these corportations and demand that foods produced by these unnatural methods be labeled as such.

Europe & Canada appear to be way ahead in the protection of the food supply. The US should be following that example.

[ici2i]

If a baseball player ate some Monsanto product containing rBST, should he let Mr Mitchell & Congress know about it? An artificial growth hormone is a growth hormone whether it''s second hand or not...stick that in your hemoglobin and smoke it. Actually, I never understood why an artificial growth hormone is needed anyway while the US Gov''t has gove price support and purchased excess dairy products to keep teh market price stable and counter over production. If that isn''t corporate (chemical company) influence at the big welfare house in DC, I don''t know what is. We never needed it and now they don''t want us to know about it. Dumb up America!!, it''s good for business!!!!!

[ici2i]

misprint: ...purchased excess dairy products to keep teh market price stable and counter over..

should read: purchased excess dairy products to keep the market price stable and to counter balance over-production.

that''s better!

[Syndicate]

Why don''t they just use organic milk and lable the Ice cream as such? Could it be that Organic milk is more expensive and Ben & jerry''s see this rBHG labling as a way to have their cake and eat it too? Is Ben & Jerry''s trying trick you into thinking their Ice cream is some how healthier? Here you have to corporate monsters fighting it out. It is almost like the coming Google Microsoft war.

[Syndicate]

zoe2006: Then move.

[offtheback]

I''''ll never buy Ben and Jerry''''s. They''''re just Corporte Greed Suckling Sleazebags apparently.

Its all about Money, mammon, for them.

Posted by FloydZepp

Is that another left foot I see growing out of your back?

[offtheback]

OK, my bad, I''''m thinking Monsanto and "typing" Ben and Jerry''''s"......I hate coffeeless 0600....

Posted by FloydZepp

OK, I thak it back, must have been the lighting

[wright5579]

Corporate greed from Ben and Jerry''s? Didn''t they cap their own salaries as CEOs?

The corporate greed is on the Monsanto side. Just let consumers decide.

[offtheback]

Actually plutonium is very expensive so if you sprayed it on your lettuce the price would go up!!! (LOL) So I guess you''''re an organics only guy. That''''s fine with me - everyone to their own. All I''''m saying is don''''t believe all the bad you read about chemicals used in the environment. The people who write most of those stories have as much to gain from their propaganda as the chemical companies do.

Posted by USBrit

All I''m saying is thirty years ago very young girls did not have breasts. Now when na eleven year old has them as large as my wife, something aint right. Anicdotal, maybe, but We aren''t willing to risk it. And no, I did not send this from my WFM computer

[offtheback]

Monstanto HUH? Better living thru chemistry. Doubt that very much. Has anyone see the movie "The Corporation" Want to find out about cows and hormones? How cows are injected with growth homomes to produce more milk and they suffer. See it for yourselves.
Posted by sioux4life1

Check out Fast Food Nation as well

[offtheback]

Why don''''t they just use organic milk and lable the Ice cream as such? Could it be that Organic milk is more expensive and Ben & jerry''''s see this rBHG labling as a way to have their cake and eat it too? Is Ben & Jerry''''s trying trick you into thinking their Ice cream is some how healthier? Here you have to corporate monsters fighting it out. It is almost like the coming Google Microsoft wa

Posted by cbscrash07

Ogly enough organic milk in bulk is becoming increasingly hard to obtain as a great portion is being bought out by, of all people, Wal Mart. Talk about a corporate dichotemy

[Renegade.Rivers]

Personally, I don''t give a rat''s but about B&J''s ice cream labels.

What I do care about is my family''s and my health. If you all want to get activated, and show some real concern about your health, and the health of your family, then I suggest you look at the drug laden water that your family and you drink each day.

Fluoride is one of the biggest boondoggles ever perpetrated on the American people. It is nothing short of poison, in fact it is the only ingredient in rat poison, sodium fluoride. It has also been shown to cause cancer, and lower levels of learning, i.e. "the dumbing down of America." Oh, by the way, it has been proven that using fluoride in your drinking water has no effect on the health of your teeth.

If you really want to make things better for us all, educate yourself, and then make everyone you know aware of the real dangers of fluoride.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/