Search Consumer Health
Newsfeed
Su
bmit news[release]
More than 100 credit cards available at uscards.com 
|
|
|
Last Updated: Jun 30, 2008 - 11:14:37 AM |
THURSDAY March 13, 2008 (Foodconsumer.org) -- A group of dairy farmers with financial support from Monsanto, the manufacturer of Posilac the synthetic bovine growth hormone used in one third of U.S. cows to increase milk production by one gallon per day per cow, are fighting to defend their right to use the drug, The New York Times reported.
American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology, or Afact was founded in the fall of 2007. The times said Monsanto and a Colorado consultant hired by the company to promote Posilac participated in the organization of this group. Monsanto admitted giving money to the organization, but said dairy farmers in the organization make their own decisions.
The drug of concern is recombinant bovine somatotropin, also known as rBST or rBGH. The FDA has said it is safe to use in cows to increase production of milk while many other countries prohibit use of this drug in dairy cows, according to the times. Preventcancer.com says that European countries and Canada ban imports of U.S. milk because of use of the synthetic hormones. Opponents of Posilac said that cows treated with synthetic hormones are more likely to suffer a number of illnesses.
From the regulation viewpoint, it's unlikely that the government would block farmers from using the drug or others. Afact may not be worried about this. The problem the "conventional" milk producers may have is that more and more Americans have dropped the conventional milk for the natural milk from cows untreated with synthetic hormones.
One thing the Posilac supporters can do to prevent consumers from avoiding the "conventional' milk is to lobby lawmakers to prohibit their competitors from labeling their milk as "hormone-free". One old argument is that when you use such language, you mislead consumers to believe that "hormone-free" milk is superior to the milk from hormone-injected cows. Because of this, producers of natural milk are required to add working aside a "hormone-free' claim to indicate that milk from Posilac-injected cows is not inferior or the hormone-free milk is not superior to the conventional milk.
Regardless of the safety issue, a survey cited by the Times found 80 percent of consumers said labeling of milk from cows untreated with injected hormones should be allowed so that consumers can have a right to know and choose what they are going to eat and drink.
In response to the consumers' demand, the food market has no longer enjoyed the "conventional" milk as much as before. Starbucks claimed they would drop milk from hormone-injected cows, media reported earlier. Whole Foods and Wal-Mart, cited by the Times, also opted to sell "hormone-free" milk only. Kraft was said to have a plan to sell cheese labeled as having come from untreated cows.
The Times report says "Afact has embarked on a counteroffensive that includes meeting with retailers and pushing efforts by state legislators and state agriculture commissioners to pass laws to ban or restrict labels that indicate milk comes from untreated cows."
Dennis Wolff, the agriculture secretary of Pennsylvania last fall tried to ban milk that was labeled as free of synthetic hormones because he claimed that consumers were confused, which turned out to be supported by no evidence. Wolff withdrew the move when consumer groups and Gov. Edward Rendell balked. But the state in the end tightened up the language on milk labeling.
According to Michael Hansen, affiliated with Consumer Union, the publisher of Consumer reports, labeling changes have seen as an issue in recent months in other states including New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, Kansas Utah, Missouri and Vermont.
© 2004-2008 by foodconsumer.org unless otherwise specified
Top of Page
Search Consumer-friendly Health Sites
|
|
|
|