A decision by Pennsylvania agriculture officials that dairy products sold in the state could not be labeled as synthetic-hormone-free sparked a consumer outcry and a review by Governor Ed Rendell. Yesterday, officials more or less reversed that ban: dairies will be allowed to advertise that their cows aren't shot up with synthetic hormones, which increase milk production. However, dairies touting the non-injection of their bovines will not be allowed to use the language "hormone-free," as some hormones occur naturally in cows, and must also include a disclaimer that no significant difference has been shown between milk from injected and non-injected cows. Concerns about the hormones' effect on humans have been so far unsubstantiated, though the effects on the cows -- such as increased risk of udder infection and reduced number of pregnancies -- are better documented.
Say Cheese
Pennsylvania will allow hormone labels on dairy products 3
-
Posted 11:26 AM on 18 Jan 2008
-
Posted in
-
Read More About
Related Stories
Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) [UPDATED]
Climate Citizen: Michael Pollan on agriculture and health care
Cautious optimism for Copenhagen deal as Barcelona climate talks end
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:59 pm
18 Jan 2008
Permalink
dumpsterfuel Posted 10:56 pm
18 Jan 2008
I help run a small grocery store here in the Dairy State (Wisconsin, not California, I guess I should call it the Cheese State) that sells local food, with a preference for organics and other good agricultural and animal husbandry practices. We carry organic butter and butter labeled as rBGH free (with the lengthy disclaimer like the one they are now requiring in Pennsylvania). To the average consumer, these "RBGh Free" labels are VERY confusing. Most think, hmm, what's that mean, and look at the fine print, and see what Monsanto forced the good companies to write - "not proven to be any different than the other stuff" and wonder why it matters, then? It makes us look bad, which is exactly what they (monsanto) wants.
When I first started college in 1991 I participated in a local farmer/university action - a milk dump - in protest of the rBGH laws and I didn't have a clue as to the power of corporations at that point. Here we are over 15 years later and consumers are still confused about artificial hormones, badly informed really, and monsanto is still ripping off farmers and manipulating our government for their profit.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:13 pm
22 Jan 2008
As long as the label is accurate, the grower or manufacturer of a food product should be able to explain why their product is different from other products. They should be free to say it is free of a certain protein, even if the protein is known to be safe. They should be free to say seafood was harvested wihtout killing turtles or othe non-target species; it might be important to someone. They should be free to say it is free of GMOs; people have a right to exclude them from their diets. They should be free to say food was grown without fungicides, synthetic or natural.
It is not up to corporations to protect consumers from potentially controversial issues. It is up to corporations and all other business to fully disclose the nature of their products, tell us what the hazards are, what some people think the benefits are, and allow consumers to decide what is most important to them. Regardless of whether 99% of scientists agree that something is perfectly safe, a consumer has a right to know that it is in a product and avoid it if they are concerned. It is not unusual for less than 1% of human beings to actually have a clue about the hazard of something before the other 99% of them realize the same thing.
As a supporter of GMOs and other biotechnology who has repeatedly been accused of being a corporate shill, a threat to the environment, a blind supporter of GMOs -- even though I do not support all GMOs or believe they will help us solve every environmental problem -- I'd like to urge others who support GMOs and other biotechnology to stand behind and express support for growers who wish to label their products free of certain proteins, such as RBGh, or free of GMOs. It is their right and any effort to suppress that right will inevitably fail, leaving all of us worse off.
A free market of goods, services, and ideas cannot function unless consumers are fully informed.
For the record, I myself purchase organic milk because I do not approve of the use of RBGh for numerous reasons. There seems to be enough milk in the world. Why produce even more by using a method that might not be safe? Biotechnology should be used to solve real problems, not create more.
Permalink