Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: [permaculture] Fw: [oeffadirect] Consumers Won't Know What They're Missing

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Nancy Bracewell" <Cather39@bham.rr.com>
  • To: "'permaculture'" <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [permaculture] Fw: [oeffadirect] Consumers Won't Know What They're Missing
  • Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:21:17 -0600

"We just feel that consumers, when given the choice, for the same price
point, will always choose a product that they believe is the most naturally
produced available."

Yeah -- there's a reason for that. The agribiz megafarms do not practice
good husbandry and depend on artificialities to cover up. All in the name of
profit, NOT in the name of healthy.
Appearances only count with those bottom-liners.

Nancy
Cob is fire proof, but our society outlaws it. --Ray Cirino

http://people.tribe.net/raycirino/photos/3352a8b8-0373-47dc-8728-6feaf3716e3
c


-----Original Message-----
From: permaculture-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:permaculture-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Rollens
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 10:44 AM
To: permaculture
Subject: [permaculture] Fw: [oeffadirect] Consumers Won't Know What They're
Missing

Remember this when you drive through Pennsylvania and think about spending
money there. Better yet, what about an email response from across the
country to the PA Sec'y of Agriculture, Dennis Wolff????

Ohio is now fighting this same fight, hopefully with better results.

Lisa, in the MO Ozarks


----- Original Message -----
From: Jerome Rigot
To: oeffadirect@oeffa.org
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 6:19 PM
Subject: [oeffadirect] Consumers Won't Know What They're Missing


The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/business/11feed.html
November 11, 2007
The Feed


Consumers Won't Know What They're Missing
By ANDREW MARTIN

THE Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture has decided that consumers are
too dim to make their own shopping decisions. Agriculture officials in Ohio
are contemplating a similar decision.

As of Jan. 1, Pennsylvania is banning labels on milk and dairy products that
say it comes from cows that haven't been treated with artificial bovine
growth hormone, which is sometimes known as rBGH or rBST. State officials
say the labels are confusing and impossible to verify.

If you have stepped into the dairy aisle anytime recently, you have probably
noticed that some of the milk now for sale has a carton label saying it is
free of artificial growth hormones. Consumers are demanding it, and a
growing number of milk bottlers, grocery stores and retail chains have taken
notice.

It might not surprise you to learn that Whole Foods Market, Trader Joe's and
Starbucks offer rBGH-free milk. But Kroger, Publix and Costco also use it
for their house brands.

And Dean Foods, the nation's largest milk bottler, has told suppliers in
some regions of the country like the Northeast and Texas that they should
make the transition to milk without the artificial hormone.

Farmers use artificial bovine growth hormone to increase a cow's milk
production by a gallon or more a day. The federal government maintains that
it is perfectly safe, but it remains illegal in many other countries and
critics continue to question its safety. Regardless, many American consumers
buy rBGH-free milk because they are uncomfortable with the idea of milk that
comes from cows that have been shot full of artificial hormones and because
it's cheaper than organic milk, which, of course, doesn't allow use of the
artificial hormones. But the backlash against rBGH has unsettled its
manufacturer, Monsanto, and the dairy farmers who have come to rely on it to
raise production. They have spent more than a decade trying to persuade
federal and state authorities to ban or restrict non-rBGH labels on the
grounds that there is no difference in milk from cows that are treated with
the hormone and those that are not.

They finally found an ally in Dennis Wolff, Pennsylvania's agriculture
secretary.

Late last month, Mr. Wolff announced a crackdown on "absence labeling" on
milk, meaning labels that tell consumers what isn't in a product rather than
what is.

He argues that "hormone free" labels are misleading because cows produce
hormones naturally. Even labels that are more carefully worded, such as
"contains no artificial hormones" will soon be verboten in Pennsylvania
because Mr. Wolff said that there were no scientific tests to prove the
truth of such a claim.

His ban also extends to phrases like "pesticide free" and "antibiotic free,"
which he maintains are confusing for consumers because they suggest that
milk without those labels contains pesticides or antibiotics. In fact, he
said, processed milk is tested repeatedly in Pennsylvania to make sure that
it doesn't contain those substances.

"It confuses them," he said. "It seems to imply there is a safe, nonsafe
dimension."

A former dairy farmer, Mr. Wolff said he decided to look into the issue
after he received calls from farmers complaining that they were being forced
to stop using bovine growth hormone if they wanted to continue selling their
milk to certain dairies. He also said his office had received many calls
from confused consumers.

Mr. Wolff's office could not provide surveys or research showing that
consumers were confused by the issue, and was unable to come up with even
one name of a consumer who had complained.

The Ohio Department of Agriculture held a hearing on the milk labeling issue
last week, though no decision has been made.

The proliferation of labels making health claims on food is clearly a source
of confusion to consumers. And governments can play a useful role in making
sure that the labels are accurate. But Mr. Wolff's edict doesn't have
anything to do with helping consumers. Otherwise, he would have tried to
refine the labels or create a system for verifying dairy farmers' claims (a
process for which the Food and Drug Administration issued guidelines ­ in
1994).

Rather, Mr. Wolff is bucking consumer demand, which will benefit Monsanto
and a bunch of whiny dairy farmers. Monsanto certainly doesn't need his
help. On Thursday, the company told investors that its gross profits should
double in the next five years. And I find it hard to muster sympathy for
farmers who refuse to change to meet consumer demands. Most businesses
certainly don't have that luxury.

It's harder still to find much merit in Mr. Wolff's arguments for the
labeling ban.

He defends the labeling decision by arguing that the non-rBGH labels can't
be verified by scientific testing because there is no difference between
milk from cows that has been treated with bovine growth hormone and those
that have not. But the same argument could be made about organic milk.

He also argues that absence labels such as "no artificial hormones" suggest
that products without those labels are inferior. So what? As long as the
claim is accurate, isn't the point of labels to differentiate one product
from another?

Using Mr. Wolff's reasoning, you could argue that organic labels on milk are
unfair because they suggest that non- organic food is inferior. The same
goes for labels for "natural," "from grass-fed cows" and "locally produced."

But here Mr. Wolff contradicts his own argument. There are exceptions to his
rule, for what he describes as "puff" claims like "farm fresh" and "locally
produced."

Isn't he saying that milk produced in New Jersey is inferior? And how do you
scientifically prove it's from Pennsylvania anyway?

TODD RUTTER, president of Rutter's Dairy in York, Pa., said he was
particularly incensed that he learned about the new standards the day after
the decision was made, when he was called by reporters. Mr. Rutter's dairy
began labeling its milk as having "no artificial growth hormones" on Oct. 1,
using labeling guidelines from the F.D.A. He said his label was reviewed and
approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture last summer.

"I'm not arguing that it may be bad for you, may not be bad for you," he
said. "We just feel that consumers, when given the choice, for the same
price point, will always choose a product that they believe is the most
naturally produced available."

Leslie Zuck, executive director of Pennsylvania Certified Organic, said she,
too, was disappointed with the ruling. But she offers a sensible compromise.
Instead of banning the labels, why couldn't dairy farmers who use the
artificial growth hormone use their own labels?

Ms. Zuck suggests this: "We use rBGH and it's great stuff!"

Any buyers?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


_______________________________________________
Oeffaco_oeffadirect mailing list
Oeffaco_oeffadirect@oeffa.org
http://www.oeffa.org/mailman/listinfo/oeffaco_oeffadirect



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.21/1109 - Release Date: 11/4/2007
11:05 AM
_______________________________________________
permaculture mailing list
permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
Subscribe or unsubscribe here:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.30/1126 - Release Date: 11/12/2007
12:56 PM


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.31/1130 - Release Date: 11/14/2007
9:27 AM






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page