Monsanto having a cow in milk label dispute: Hormone-free tag unfair, company says

[Guest guest]

What right ought a parent have to know whether or not milk is hormone

free? Are not the interests of the CEO and owners of Monsanto more

important than the general public? Whose interests are the FTC and FDA

bigwigs likely to favor?

- - - -

Monsanto having a cow in milk label dispute

'Hormone free' tag unfair, company says

By J. Hedges

Tribune staff reporter

Published April 15, 2007

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-070415monsanto-story,0,7410348.story

WASHINGTON -- Agribusiness giant Monsanto Co. is challenging a growing

trend among dairies to label their milk " hormone free, " saying those

claims mislead consumers into believing that the cow growth hormone

Monsanto makes is unsafe.

In an action that could send ripples through the food industry, St.

Louis-based Monsanto is moving aggressively against a group of dairies to

halt the use of " hormone free. " It said that such labels suggest that

there is something unhealthy about its synthetic hormone drug.

In letters filed recently with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and

the Federal Trade Commission, Monsanto protests that milk labels touting

the fact that cows did not receive the hormone—known as rGBH, rBST or

Posilac—have unfairly damaged its business, as well as that of dairy

farmers who use the drug on their cows.

The FDA has found no difference in the milk produced by cows that received

rBST and those that did not, Monsanto says. The hormone increases milk

production by about 10 percent.

Monsanto's action reflects a shift in the food industry in recent years,

as consumers demand more natural and organic foods and seek labeling that

explains just what went into their production. Cartons of eggs, for

example, increasingly boast that the chickens that produced them were

" cage-free. " Beef is marketed as " grass-fed. " Dairies began tagging milk

as " hormone free " soon after Monsanto won FDA approval for its growth

hormone in 1993.

The food producers who use such labels say consumers have the right to

know what is in their food and that they are responding to buyers'

desires.

" Our customers tell us this is what they want, " said Stanley ,

president of Oakhurst Dairy in Portland, Maine, which sells no-hormone

milk. " They ask us for this. "

Monsanto's latest claims renew a fight the company started several years

ago when it sued Oakhurst, which is owned by 's family. The case

was settled in 2003 when Oakhurst agreed to include language on its labels

that explains that the FDA has found no significant difference between

milk from cows that were given rGBH, and those that did not get the

hormone.

Dairy pushes pledge

and Oakhurst, though, have hardly shied away from using the

no-hormones pitch in selling dairy products. The dairy pays farmers not to

use the hormone.

" Oakhurst knows that consumers want a choice, " its Web site says. " So

Oakhurst will continue working only with local farmers who pledge not to

use artificial growth hormone. "

Monsanto contends that its hormone does not affect the cows' health or

their milk's taste. An FDA review of the drug during its approval process

found no difference between milk from cows that did or did not receive the

growth hormone.

" False and deceptive advertising regarding milk and (rBST) has mislead

consumers for years, " Monsanto states in its complaint to the FTC. " These

practices are clear violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act and

result in higher milk price for consumers and less choice for dairy

farmers. "

While Monsanto won't release sales figures for its hormone, company

spokesman Burchett said that " about a third of the dairy cows in

the U.S. are in herds where farmers choose to use Posilac. "

Posilac is the company's trademark name for the hormone.

In Illinois, the state Department of Public Health reached a settlement

with three dairy producers in 1997 that resolved a federal lawsuit over

" hormone free " claims on labels. Ben & Jerry's Homemade Ice Cream, Organic

Valley Farms, a producer of diary and other items, and Stonyfield Farms,

whose main product is yogurt, sued the state after it declined their

request to use the " hormone free " language.

The Illinois settlement allows milk producers to use labels that read: " We

oppose rBGH. The family farmers who supply our milk pledge not to treat

their cows with rBGH. "

Those labels must also include language that the FDA has not found a

difference between milk produced from rBGH cows and those cows not given

the hormone.

That's what is on milk labels sold at Whole Food Markets in Illinois and

elsewhere.

" Our customers are very interested in it, " said Will Betts, the Midwest

region grocery coordinator for Whole Foods Market Inc. " They are concerned

with a lot of factors. They're concerned with what they put in their

bodies. While it's true that the studies haven't proven any difference

[between milk from rBGH cows and those not given rBGH], they still want

the most natural product they can get. The other issue is that they're

concerned about the land and the animals. "

Monsanto answers critics

In that regard, Whole Foods notes that " recent studies have supported

earlier conclusions regarding the negative effects of rBGH/rBST on dairy

cows. A report by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association on rBGH/rBST

in November 1998 indicates that there are quantifiable reductions in the

health of the cows treated with rBGH/rBST. "

Monsanto's Burchett disputed those findings. In an e-mail, he said the

Canadian study " was not as comprehensive in its review of the scientific

literature on rBST as the U.S. FDA pre- and post-approval review of

Posilac. "

He also said the study " included data based on the use of different

product formulations, dose levels and application practices of prototype

products from more than one company that were never approved for

commercial use. "

" Farmers depend on the health and well-being of their herds and will not

choose to use products that are not beneficial, " Burchett said. " A large

number of dairy producers have used Posilac with great success since the

product was introduced 13 years ago. "

An FDA spokeswoman said the agency would have no immediate response to

Monsanto's most recent complaint, which was submitted April 3.

But in a statement, the agency said: " This drug was only approved after

FDA established that it is effective and safe. Effectiveness means that

Posilac does what the company claims (increases milk production). Safety

covers three main areas: safety of the food products to humans, safety to

the target animal (the cow) and safety to the environment. "

Monsanto's complaint includes examples of labels and advertisement from 13

dairies.

For instance, milk from HP Hood, a diary operator based in Chelsea, Mass.,

carried a label that had " No Artificial Growth Hormones " on the package,

along with an attached note that read " To Satisfy Our Customers. "

Dutch-Way Dairy in Pennsylvania sells milk with labels touting, " No Added

BST The way it's meant to be! "

That marketing logic, Monsanto complains, distorts the research on Posilac

and the FDA's conclusions.

The " claim that milk from non-supplemented cow is healthier for children

is patently false, " Monsanto writes. " There is no evidence to suggest that

milk from rBST-supplemented cows has any adverse developmental effect on

children. "

shedges@...

Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune

The material in this post is distributed without

profit to those who have expressed a prior interest

in receiving the included information for research

and educational purposes.For more information go to:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~csundt/documents.htm

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this

email for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you

must obtain permission from the copyright owner.