Pennsylvania bans hormone- and antibiotic-free labels on dairy products 21

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   CompleteMockery Posted 3:35 am
   14 Nov 2007

   The solution is SO simple!Are you a baby? No? Then stop drinking milk!  While were at it:  Want to avoid Mercury?  Stop eating fish!  Labels, schmabels!  Wake up and stop poisoning yourself, people!

   Permalink

2. 

   Colin Bennett Posted 3:58 am
   14 Nov 2007

   It's worth repeating, stop drinking milk...The scientific evidence is overwhelming, drinking milk from cows is definitely not healthy. It's common sense: cows' milk is for cows, not people.

   Permalink

3. 

   javalo Posted 4:32 am
   14 Nov 2007

   But look at the big picture...You are not going to convince everyone to stop drinking milk tomorrow. That is not how we are going to change the world. If you want to affect widespread change, you have to champion small victories and embrace the milk drinking population. The loss of this labeling is a big deal, even if it is about milk. Its about consumers right of choice being given to large companies with poor values. Its about the education in that label that might have forced Monsanto to stop using growth hormones in the future. Education forces the observation of externalities for which these companies need to take responsibility.

   Permalink

4. 

   Roz Cummins Posted 4:42 am
   14 Nov 2007

   Isn't this really a first amendment issue?I believe that the government telling dairies that they can't state that they don't use antibiotics or hormones is a form of prior restraint. I believe that this issue should be championed by free speech advocates as well as advocates for safe foods.
   To those who believe that humans shouldn't ingest cows milk, that's all well and good, but doesn't it bother you that our government agencies are in the pockets of special interests like Monsanto to the degree that they would deprive milk drinkers from having important information like whether a dairy uses these substances on their cows? It bothers me.

   Permalink

5. 

   pianoyoga Posted 6:28 am
   14 Nov 2007

   Monsanto is evilSilent Spring, Inc.
   It's hard to wrap your mind around it. There's a bunch of info at:
    http://members.aye.net/~hippie/monsanto.htm
   I hadn't been aware of their penetration of the Bush administration.  For instance, Mitch Daniel who directs OMB came from Eli Lilly (subsidiary of Monsanto), which developed rGBH.  

   Permalink

6. 

   Vikingsson Posted 6:33 am
   14 Nov 2007

   Then we're doomedI am amazed by this one.  Not only did we loose the battle decades ago about labeling GM food we can't even label foods as not being GM or otherwise enhanced by the soylent green producers.
   As far as milk goes, don't drink it if you think it deadly but I think that as long as there are cows being slaughtered for meat and leather then we should also use the milk.  Waste nothing.  Of course meat and dairy production is not the same cow.  yada yada, meat is bad too but as long as we're doing it...
   I still want my cheese but not if the milk is GM.  Monsanto is the devil and so are the weenies that took the bribe.
   
   

   Permalink

7. 

   sherrieh Posted 7:13 am
   14 Nov 2007

   HilariousCorporations and governments sure do love the free market, at least until empowered consumers choose not to buy products.  If Monsanto or Pennsylvania truly believed ignorance was the only reason consumers avoid these products, the proper response would be educating those consumers, not increasing the ignorance by hiding information consumers want and other producers are willing to provide.

   Permalink

8. 

   norascats Posted 8:09 am
   14 Nov 2007

   I'm so glad I get my milk at the farmI get my milk at the farm. I can see the cows grazing and I talk to the farmer about his practices and what he is doing to improve his herd, his milk and his business.
   
   I try to get as close to the source of my food as I can.

   Permalink

9. 

   sloppymoose Posted 10:37 am
   14 Nov 2007

   i cant believe thisThis makes me so angry i cant even think correctly.

   Permalink

10. 

    trickytank Posted 3:04 pm
    14 Nov 2007

    sickthose agriculture officials are sick.
    And so what if they didn't know any difference? Those antibiotics and hormones can seep into the environment and effect the natural fauna and flora. According to the Post-Gazette article the hormone rBST has caused an increase in the rate of udder infection in cows.
    Maybe we don't want to provide for the sick, bullying, money-hungry chemical companies?
    I'm glad that hormone is banned here in Australia.

    Permalink

11. 

    Jascheua Posted 4:47 pm
    14 Nov 2007

    and the sun goeth downthe beautiful thing about this capitalist economy is that we can save ourselves by making the right choices marketable. And consumers are allowed the choice.
    
    Here we have those consumer choices taken away. What if it has nothing to do with health reasons and certain people just dont want food from cows raised on hormones? Its just like with vegetarians. Some people will firmly and passionately argue that you need meat to live, and I've dealt with it all of my life. So we disallow people the right to be vegetarians because they are uneducated and think its healthier?
    
    Why is the government protecting such a disgusting industry. God, it just makes it so much harder for people who are actually trying to save this world and hope their potential grandchildren will get to live their lives before this world implodes.
    it is true, the only way we are going to win this war against ignorance and greed is to make green choices marketable.
    This here is a step in the completely wrong direction.

    Permalink

12. 

    Green Granny Posted 7:06 pm
    14 Nov 2007

    Dare to know!You are right Jascheua, we must dare to know; dare to learn; dare to be wise. . .  Ignorance is not bliss and can be dangerous.
    Norascats, I'm with you.  I'm glad I get my milk, cream, butter, and cheese directly from the farmer.  That's better than any label by far.  Unfortunately, there are those who'd like to make buying directly from the farmer illegal which is why I had to by a "herd share."  
    Finally, Roz.  I agree that this is a freedom of speech issue.  No unfounded or untrue claims are made by labeling milk as "without" something.  If consumers are willing to pay a premium for foods labeled "organic", "all natural", "hormone free", or conversely "highly processed", "chemically enriched", "fortified", etc then that is simply the "free market" at work.  But of course the "free market" is not at all free. . .
    The older I get the more I feel like opting out of the "market" as much as possible.  I buy most of my food directly from farmers or grow it myself.  I hope some day to make my home entirely energy independent and draw nothing from "the grid".  If I need something, I look to garage sales and thrift stores before stepping foot in a big box store.
    Finally, Monsanto is only behaving as giant international corporations behave.  Constant expansion of "market share", of profits, etc are what motivates all big business.  And our politicians mostly follow the dollar, not the constituent.  They have to or they won't have the resources to get elected.  The system is "rigged."  But we all still have choices.
    Just because we cannot change the "system" does not mean we must be part of the "system."
     

    Permalink

13. 

    solar greg Posted 10:48 pm
    14 Nov 2007

    What happened to freedom?If we let them get away with stuff like this, we might as well give up.I don't know if it has changed but you could actually put the word ORGANIC on a product if it had a carbon molecule in it! So if they permitted some to basically lie (misleading is LYING in my book), why can't others tell the truth?
    
    It all boils down to governments being controlled by BIG interests.
    
    By the way, pesticides that are banned for use in the USA are still manufactured in the USA and sold outside the USA.

    Permalink

14. 

    janders Posted 8:53 am
    18 Nov 2007

    Abused milk and obstruction of informationMuch like the responder who said he/she couldn't even  think straight after reading this - I'm  astounded that these states would actually go to such lengths to  disempower the consumer and prevent  those who want to consume dairy  from knowing if they are tainted /boosted with  hormones, etc.  After weaning my own kids from nursing, I have  only  fed them hormone free  mild products when we are  including them in our diet - the result which even my traditional pediatrician  has finally conceded and concurred that there is a direct linkage  - they have matured at a more normal rate-  puberty at age 14 instead of the increasing trend for girls as early as age 7 and 8 (that isn't normal folks and bodes  trouble  in later years of the girl's life!) There is a direct and absolute correlation between the age of first mense and  the consumption of  hormone  boosted milk products. Boys are also affected with early puberty, more dermal issues and a strong potetntial link to autism and ADD.   How can the consumer fight back - stop buying the  darn poison stuff - buy only organic products from known sources and  talk this one up  on the internet, My Space, Facebook and blog sites till even  mighty Monsanto and the  corrupted  state  regulators have to swallow their own bitter pills.

    Permalink

15. 

    John former Marine Posted 4:26 am
    19 Nov 2007

    Milk is part of our identity!I don't know how it got this way (Got Milk?), but somehow, people have become totally convinced that milk is part of our identity and they simply can't do without it.  Here in Vermont, everyone pays lip service to the terrible, dirty industry.  If there were 20 dairy farmers in each town and they got out and each milked their 10 cows by hand every morning, there'd be plenty of milk for the local community.  But we don't want to consume a bit of a luxury product...we have to consume it every day, several times a day.  Consumer demand and willingness to look the other way is what has turned the "dairy farmer" into the "dairy industry."  If you absolutely have to drink your milk (you big baby cow!), get a cow for yourself or share one with your neighbors.

    Permalink

16. 

    ritadona Posted 3:41 am
    20 Nov 2007

    No Monsanto labelI think the companies should have a right to put a label on the milk that says, "No Monsanto" on it or something then.  
    Though, I agree, it really is unfortunate that people continue to consume milk when even the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture puts out reports about how rife with bacteria it is--even AFTER pasteurization.  Plus, momma cow can't have her babies around hogging up all that good-for-cows milk, so, guess what?  Little boy cows get taken away to get slowly tortured to become veal and little girl cows (if they're lucky) get to turn right back around to become constantly-pregnant mommas themselves to make more milk for people!
    And lest you think that the above scenario doesn't happy on those "happy farms" you all are getting your milk from now, just ask that farmer what happen to the those milk cows' calves--oh, and ask him what happens to momma when her milk runs dry, too, while you're at it.  

    Permalink

17. 

    wiscidea Posted 5:03 am
    20 Nov 2007

    Just A SuggestionI suggest that as this trend unfolds responsible consumers start calling manufacturers and asking them whether their product is free of antibiotics, free of hormones, and, if you really must ask, free of GM ingredients. Just tell them you couldn't find it on the label. Perhaps record the conversation or ask them to put it in writing as well.
    This could be done to help those would otherwise put the information on labels and annoy those who wish to suppress such information. The information -- pro or con -- could then be posted on websites and/or  written on placards carried by transparency advocates outside grocery stores.
    I assume it is still okay for manufacturers to mention in ads or on their websites that their product is free of antibiotics and hormones? And it is okay for citizens to excercise free speech?
    Aren't people dying somewhere to protect our free speech from Islamofascists? Oh... forgot... we must sacrifice freedom to preserve freedom.

    Permalink

18. 

    wiscidea Posted 11:11 pm
    20 Nov 2007

    Corporations and Free SpeechThis raises an interesting issue...
    For decades, corporations have claimed that they should be treated as individual entities equivalent to "persons" and entitled to protection of their right of free speech.
    It seems to me that this ruling, if it survives a trip through the court system, sets a new precedent. Corporations and, I assume, other organizations are not "persons" and have no state or federal constitutional rights. This could actually be a good thing. I wonder if the corporations pushing for restrictions on the right of free speech realize what they might be doing. Hee hee hee.
    Does Grist have access to a legal expert who might post a few commentaries on this topic?

    Permalink

19. 

    wiscidea Posted 11:16 pm
    20 Nov 2007

    Can we extend this to political ads?"Michael Doane, the company's [Monsanto's] spokesflack, said that the hormone-free label "implies to consumers, who may or may not be informed on these issues, that there's a health-and-safety difference between these two milks, that there's 'good' milk and 'bad' milk, and we know that's not the case."
    I have no idea what the results would be... but I'll be pondering this as I drive to work.

    Permalink

20. 

    John former Marine Posted 10:48 pm
    26 Nov 2007

    Free Speech?How about the freedom to talk about the fact that milk is a luxury product that is not necessary for human nutrition, is bad for the environment, is poorly regulated, and is linked to a huge number of illnesses.  I gave up dairy products in 1998 and haven't had a single sinus infection, sore throat, cold, etc. since then.  Look, I'm not saying that nobody should be allowed to drink milk.  I'm aware of the fact that if you go to places like Norway, where the growing conditions are very marginal, that goat's milk has contributed to the survival of people there for hundreds of years.  But in our modern, post-industrial society, we're not stuggling to get enough calories to make it through the winter.  Today dairy is nothing but a luxury.  A heavily subsidized luxury.  Like gasoline.  If you care about global warming, reducing your dairy consumption is every bit as important as reducing your fossil fuel consumption.  If you want to get a goat and use it to mow your lawn, I'm fine with that.  But there's no reason why MY tax dollars should be subsidizing your milk consumption...even if it is no-antibiodic, BHG-free, free-range, pastured, sugar-coated, happy-cow, local-trendy, yuppy Green.

    Permalink

21. 

    John former Marine Posted 10:58 pm
    26 Nov 2007

    can we get non-GMO labeled Cola while we're at it?I have to add that 99.99% of you who consume milk are just looking the other way.  If I drink a can of soda every day, I'm just ignoring the fact that it takes a lot of energy to mine and refine the aluminum, that aluminum is poisoning a lot of things (including our bodies), that the soda in the can is nothing but water with subsidized corn syrup, and that overall, it's a nutritionally-worthless, luxury, wasteful product.  I'm just saying that this whole argument is a waste of time.  If you really care about getting something nutritious, stop buying factory-farmed industrial-scale milk altogether.  Get the FDA to allow small-scale milk production without pasteurization and homogenization.  You should know the cow that's feeding you is what I'm saying.  What difference does it make when your milk is labeled BHG-free when it's mixed with the milk of 1000 other cows?  It's still industrial agriculture and it's disgusting and unhealthful.  If you get your own cow, you'll appreciate the milk a lot more...and it'll taste better because there will be less puss in it.  And if you've got a 3-acre lawn, you've got no excuse for mowing it when you could easily have a goat.

    Permalink