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.

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.