MONTPELIER, Vt., Feb. 5, 2008
Ben & Jerry's Fights For Labeling Rights
States, Industry Challenge Ice Cream Maker's Right To Advertise As Synthetic Hormone-Free
-
Ben Powden, Frozen Foods Manager at Lantman's Supermarket in Hinesburg, Vt., holds a Ben & Jerry's ice cream pint, Monday, Feb. 4, 2008, which shows a label, at center, displaying the company's stance against Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone. (AP Photo/Alden Pellett)
-
Interactive Science On The Plate Explore the history of bioengineered food. Find out more about the contentious debate over its safety.
-
Quiz Are You Food Savvy? Have you consumed myths about diet and nutrition? Take these quizzes to find out.
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.
Quote
Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility
So far, efforts to ban hormone-free labeling have stalled.There is not absolute proof that shooting cows up with rBGH is increasing cancer rates in humans... there is a significant amount of scientific data that is pointing in that direction.
Rick North,Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility
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."
© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 85 CommentsThe person who made this comment certainly has a lot of learning to do about mechanisms of hormone action. As a Ph.D. toxicologist, I could bring up many examples of cross-species endocrine disruptors or agonists. How about hormone replacement therapy for post-menopausal women? The hormones that women are given are conjugated equine estrogens...that''s right...from horse urine. What about soy isoflavones? These phytoestrogens such as genistein are human estrogen receptor agonists and they come from plants! No doubt that rBST in moderation is ok but I think it absolutely needs to be disclosed to the public on labels so that people can make their own choices about how much of it they wish to consume.
Posted by insightman at 11:58 AM : Feb 06, 2008
Oh, there is no difference between bovine milk and human milk?
Now that is biochemistry at it''s finest...
And, of course, there are no incidences throughout the course of human history where repeated exposure to foreign substances has caused humans to become "sensitized" to them, are there?
And all such biochemical "assumptions" are iron-clad rules, right? That is why nobody is "lactose-intolerant" or allergic to peanuts, eh?
Sheesh...
...
Consumer groups need to get onboard with this right now and demand the dairy processors only buy milk from non BST herds. In the end the public will win out its just a matter of time as long as the topic continues.
...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The trouble is with labeling, but not as covered by this article. The milk I buy claims
no artificial growth hormones*
with a very tiny asterisk. When the fine print explaining the asterisk is found, the claim is expanded to
no significant difference between this milk and milk produced without artificial growth hormones.
Now THAT is misleading labeling!
(I too wonder if Monsanto contributes to the RNC, the DNC, and every major congressional candidate...)
Then take your spam to the girls site, we are discussing this topic here.
Reported, yet again.
The severe ecological risks of crops genetically engineered to produce toxins include the threat posed to beneficial species such as birds, bees, butterflies and beetles which are necessary for pollination and for pest control though pest-predator balance."
Still wondering what is killing off the bees?
This company is experimenting with recombinant strains of food plants that could replace traditional crops, but only yield one sterile harvest a year, forcing farmers worldwide to buy Monsanto seed every year.
This cornering of the world''s food supply is an evil straight out of some James Bond fiction, made reality.
They must be stopped.
Posted by hypnotoad72 at 04:06 PM : Feb 05, 2008
Wow, there will be a lot of dairy farmers going to he11.
I don%u2019t really care if these chemicals are %u201Csupposed%u201D to be OK for you to consume. It just is not natural and I don%u2019t want to eat it, I don%u2019t want my kids eating it.
Hey, DDT was %u201Csupposed%u201D to be OK and not harmful to humans or our food sources. Uh-huh. Asbestos was %u201Csupposed%u201D to be OK. Mercury in vaccines was %u201Csupposed%u201D to be OK. There are tons of items that were %u201Csupposed%u201D to be OK but turned out to be far from OK.
Posted by genghis007 at 02:09 PM : Feb 05, 2008
You say that like it''''s a bad thing.
Seriously, the only way to be sure you''''re getting milk from a rGBH-free cow is to buy a cow and milk it yourself.
Posted by rf35
---------------------------------
I wonder if it makes mens'' b00bs grow big too...
Who''s going to buy a cow? They cost a lot to maintain. Some religions would probably deem it a crime as well to own a cow. But don''t expect them to say "Don''t have a cow, man!"
Posted by genghis007 at 02:09 PM : Feb 05, 2008
You say that like it''s a bad thing.
Seriously, the only way to be sure you''re getting milk from a rGBH-free cow is to buy a cow and milk it yourself.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 85 Comments