Believe it or not, there was a time when you purchased a gallon of milk and that is what you got milk. Now we have whole milk, skim milk, low fat, no fat, organic, raw milk, and recently “no artificial hormone” milk. We are a diverse society with many races, religions and cultures. Different people want different things in their food. One size no longer fits all.

Some companies, responding to consumer demand, have asked their farmers to sign a pledge stating that they do not use any artificial hormones on their cows. The product in question is rBST or recombinant bovine somatotropin and it is sold under the brand name Posilac which is produced by Monsanto corporation. It is also known as recombinant bovine growth hormone, or rBGH, which is a hormone that makes the cow produce more milk. This practice is tantamount to using performance enhancing drugs in athletes. And so the use of rBST is banned in Europe, Canada, Japan and other countries. But here in the United States it is not banned - instead it is used widely on conventional dairy farms.

If you’ve walked into a Wawa store recently, you may have noticed a large poster which states that their farmers have signed a pledge not to use these products on their cows because Wawa has determined that that is what their customers want. The problem is the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture is going to make it illegal for companies to have on their labels “contains no artificial growth hormones”. The ruling is set to go into effect on January 1, 2008. Their reason for this, according to Dennis Wolff, the Secretary for the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA), is that labels on milk cartons that make this statement are deceiving the consumer into thinking that milk that contains rBST is inferior or unsafe. According to Secretary Wolff, science has not shown any difference between milk that is produced with rBST or without.

We could have a very long discussion on whether rBST is safe or not. But I’m afraid that Secretary Wolff is missing the point. Wawa and other companies are doing this in part because this is what some consumers want. It is part of our growing diversity of the food system. A fair question might be is it not deceiving the consumer to NOT put “contains no artificial growth hormones” on the label? So now you the consumer won’t know by reading the label any of the practices used in producing your milk.

This is a big problem because Pennsylvania is a test case for this ruling and the rest of the country is watching closely. If this ruling flies, other states such as Ohio, New Jersey and Maryland are lining up to follow, and it won’t stop with milk. Noises are being made that this ruling should apply to ALL food labeling. Where does it stop? What will happen to organic labels? The PDA has also made it clear that they are going to look at “no pesticide” and “no antibiotic” labeling next.

Tyson, the second largest poultry producer in the country has already tried to do a “no antibiotic” label for their fresh chicken products. The problem is the medication in the chicken feed which is used to prevent intestinal illness is considered by the USDA to be an antibiotic so Tyson’s label has been rejected. This is a case of government doing what it is supposed to do for us consumers. By the way, Tyson was using the “no antibiotic” label on their fresh chickens which accounts for 10% of their chicken sales. One would have to assume that the other 90% of Tyson chickens have antibiotics fed to them.

This ruling by the PDA has the finger prints of Monsanto all over it. Since Monsanto manufactures rBST, they are the ones who stand to gain while everyone else, especially the consumer, loses

Just to complicate things further, dairy farmers stand to lose regardless of the outcome. Land O Lakes Dairy bottles milk for Wawa. Wawa pays Land O Lakes 75 cents per hundred weight premium for not using rBST. Land O Lakes pays their farmers 15 cents per hundred weight premium. Hardly a fair compensation for the people who signed their name to the pledge. Shouldn’t the PDA be working to get the farmers more fairly compensated, rather than working on behalf of some corporation that makes millions off underpaid farmers.

In the end it is up to consumers to decide. Farmers are too small a minority to make a difference. With farmers at 2% of the population, prisoners have a larger voice than farmers. On my farm, the first question I get from new customers is not “are you organic?” It’s usually “do you use any hormones or antibiotics on your livestock?”. I am producing food for them. They have a right to know how that food is produced.

So what do YOU want in your milk? Ask yourself, why is it not OK for athletes to use performance enhancing drugs, but it is perfectly acceptable to use them in our food system? Do you want to know if the cows have performance enhancing drugs? Veggies have pesticides? Chickens have antibiotics? If it is up to the PDA, you will never know. If you would like more info, contact PASA ( Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture) 814-349-9856 or www.pasafarming.org. We are asking that you write the Governor’s office to let them know what you think about this ruling. It DOES make a difference.

Governor Edward G. Rendell
225 Main Capitol Building
Harrisburg, PA 17102

If time is short, you may use this email address and follow the instructions as prompted:
http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Governor/govmail.html

Or, just call his office at (717) 787-2500 right now and make your feelings known.

Print This Article
Email (and more) with