Milk bottle battle emerges / LJWorld.com

Archive for Monday, March 3, 2008

Small dairies, grocers want to keep labels touting organic quality

March 3, 2008

General Manager Jeanie Wells looks a the labeling on the bottles of milk sold at the Community Mercantile Co-op, 901 Iowa, on Wednesday. The Kansas Legislature is pitting large dairies against smaller counterparts, and it's all about labels on milk containers.

On the street

Do you think dairy farmers should be able to label their milk as hormone-free?

A consumer should be well-informed. They should label anything it contains.

— Francisco Vasquez

More responses

Topeka — Got milk?

Got big fight.

A bruising agricultural battle has formed in the Legislature pitting a giant corporation and some dairies against other dairies, grocers and consumers.

And the war is over the information on labels on containers of milk and other food products.

For example, at the Community Mercantile Co-op in Lawrence - the Merc, 901 Iowa - sit row upon row of bottles of milk from Iwig Dairy of Tecumseh.

The label on the bottle states, in part: "We do not use injectable hormones (BGH) and our product is completely free of antibiotics."

That is important information for customers, says Nancy O'Connor, the Merc's education director.

O'Connor said people "want to know how their food was grown or produced and who grew or produced it.

"This type of labeling is their right to know."

But the Kansas Dairy Association and several other dairies are pushing for Senate Bill 595, which could do away with such labeling, because they say the information is misleading.

Speaking for the bill, Bob Seiler, a dairy owner in Valley Center, said much of the controversy is over the use of growth hormones used to make cows produce more milk. These include recombinant bovine somatropin (rbST) and recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH).

Milk from cows treated with these hormones is the same as those not treated "and no test can detect it," Seiler said. "But companies continue to exploit the consumers' feelings and try to label it as being better," he said.

Another group that testified for the legislation was the American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology, which is backed by Monsanto Co., which markets rbST and has pushed for similar legislation in other states.

Dairy operators said labeling is driving Wal-Mart and Kroger stores to demand rbST-free milk, and by not being able to use the hormones, that reduces the dairies' profits.

But several family farmers producing rbST-free milk say the milk is of better quality and that restricting labeling would keep consumers in the dark. They said the free market is working by making consumer demands paramount.

Also, they note, the federal Food and Drug Administration has decided that producers who do not use rbST may inform customers as long as their statements are sworn to and they add the following language: "This milk is from cows not treated with rbST. The Food and Drug Administration has determined there is no significant difference between milk from rbST treated cows and non-rbST treated cows."

The bill is before the Senate Agriculture Committee, which is chaired by state Sen. Mark Taddiken, R-Clifton.

Taddiken said lawmakers may work on the bill more this session, or research it further during the interim period before the next session.

After two hours of hearings on the bill, state Sen. Roger Pine, R-Lawrence, and vice chairman of the committee, said he needed to study it further, too.

"I'm certainly not opposed to the public having the right to know," Pine said. "That's just part of the freedom we have in this country, and I don't want to lose that regardless of what side you are on this issue."

Jeanie Wells, general manager of the Merc, said prohibiting labels that provide information about how the food was made and how the animals were treated would be devastating to consumers.

"As a grocery store, we are at the ground level with customers every day, and we know what they want," she said.

Organic and hormone-free food production "is the fastest growing segment of growth in the country," in food sales, Wells said. "I just don't think it's legal to take away that information from the customers."

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

3 March 2008
at 3:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

Sorry can't comment, I'm still uptight about Alar on apples.
3 March 2008
at 6:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gccs14r (Anonymous) says…

I gave up on cow milk long ago.
3 March 2008
at 7:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

thomgreen (Anonymous) says…

I agree with the additional statement backed by the FDA that states there any significant difference between treated and non treated cows, but otherwise, I think the consumer's right to know outweighs all other considerations.
Isn't arguing that not being able to use growth hormones to increase profits along the lines of athletes coming out saying that they have to have growth hormones to compete better?
3 March 2008
at 7:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

CrazyDiamond (Anonymous) says…

The label on the bottle states, in part: “We do not use injectable hormones (BGH) and our product is completely free of antibiotics.”

But the Kansas Dairy Association and several other dairies are pushing for Senate Bill 595, which could do away with such labeling, because they say the information is misleading.

How is that misleading?
3 March 2008
at 7:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

seriouscat (Anonymous) says…

Haha! Monsanto has their panties in a bunch over this don't they? I've been noticing more and more milk companies abandoning the hormones and it's only going to get more and more difficult for Monsanto et al the more the consumer public demands to know how our food is raised.

PLEASE take the time to write your reps y'all! These jerks are powerful and have lots and lots of money and they will never give up!

In addition to opposing this pathetic Senate Bill 595, those who care can support H.R. 1396, and S. 536, which demand labels on cloned meat. Whichever way you go on the the safety or need for these types of products, it's about consumer choice and a truly free market. Let the consumers decide!
3 March 2008
at 7:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“But the Kansas Dairy Association and several other dairies are pushing for Senate Bill 595, which could do away with such labeling, because they say the information is misleading.”

Misleading? But isn't it true it doesn't have “injectable hormones (BGH)” and “is completely free of antibiotics”?

When is precisely labeling ever wrong? I've seen push for and objection to country of origin labeling, but never knew it would be wrong to voluntarily include it.

I mean, would it be wrong to label something as “no added salt”, “no added sugar” if it doesn't have added salt or sugar?

Look for it…..
Wait for it…..

“by not being able to use the hormones, that reduces the dairies' profits.”

There it is!
3 March 2008
at 8:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jimbo (Robert bickers) says…

I still want to know how “ultra-pasteurized” can be used in place of “irradiated.” I remember the flap over irradiated foods in the late-80s, even though they were perfectly safe, yet organic milk that's been incredibly unnaturally preserved (pasteurization is far from a natural process anyway) gets the seal of approval. Personally, I buy the stuff since I use very little milk and tire of it spoiling within a week.

That said, I don't mind a little growth hormone any more than I mind cows treated with antibiotics to keep them healthy. If I can take penicillin, why can't Bessie?

3 March 2008
at 8:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

WHY (Anonymous) says…

The organic, hormone free, no chemicals used grocery items are a way for farmers to charge more for their items to a scared public when virtually no difference exists between their and others products. And milk is so unhealthy anyway (unneeded fat and calories) it is almost funny that people argue which type is better.
3 March 2008
at 8:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“And milk is so unhealthy anyway ”

Yeah, talk about misleading labeling! What about “milk is a natural”, calcium for your bones, and all the ads talking about building strength, bones, health, etc. That sounds like milk is supposed to be good for you. And that's misleading.

What animal drinks milk after they are weaned, and what animal steals milk from another species?

For those in the dark, what country drinks the most milk and what country has the highest incidence of osteoporosis?
3 March 2008
at 8:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Stain (Anonymous) says…

They hate us for our freedoms. Not the terrorists. Corporate America and their stooges in Washington.

I want to know where my food comes from. If they succeed in changing the labeling I'll do research personally and continue to make sure I know which brands of milk are without crap that doesn't help anybody but the dairy company, which, buy the way, is guaranteed a profit because of price supports.

This administration succeeded in forcing a butcher in Ark City to stop testing every animal for mad cow disease. They'll put this restriction over too.

The Bush administration is a freedom-hating, private enterprise destroying menace to the America we once knew.
3 March 2008
at 8:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tolawdjk (Anonymous) says…

What is funny is that the store I go to has two major stocked brands. One is the Kroger, one is a regional dairy. The Kroger one does not have the label on it, the regional one does.

The regional one costs between a quarter to $0.35 -less- than the Kroger one. All year when every other brand of milk has been over $3.00 a gallon, this stuff has consistantly been less. Less than Wal-Mart, less than Kroger. With two 22 month olds, I am guessing I have saved over $1.00 a week. Might not seem like much, but it is precious little out there right now where you can actually say you have -saved- money on.
3 March 2008
at 8:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Stain (Anonymous) says…

You can write the chairman of the committee that is deciding this in the Kansas Senate, here:

taddiken@senate.state.ks.us
3 March 2008
at 8:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

supercowbellninja (Anonymous) says…

The consumer's right to know what they are putting into their body should trump all. Shame on these companies for trying to hide their growth horomone practices behind vague labeling. It's clear they are more concerned with the bottom line than with the well-being and education of their customers. This should outrage any level-headed person!
3 March 2008
at 8:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Stain (Anonymous) says…

Dillons carries a brand of hormone-free milk that is $5.99 a gallon. It is not with the other milk, but in the section nearest the dairy section that contains sausage, bacon, etc.

HyVee carries Twig's and also other brands of organic milk (including the one I mentioned for 50 a gallon more) in their health food section.

And of course the Merc offers choices. I don't know about the Casbah market downtown.

Goat milk is delicious and creamy and an easily acquired taste and avoids the whole issue.
3 March 2008
at 9 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

none2 (Anonymous) says…

WHY (Anonymous) says:
“The organic, hormone free, no chemicals used grocery items are a way for farmers to charge more for their items to a scared public when virtually no difference exists between their and others products.”
=====================
I pretty much agree with you. It is a marketing scam to inflate the value of food.

WHY (Anonymous) says:
“And milk is so unhealthy anyway (unneeded fat and calories) it is almost funny that people argue which type is better.”
==============
Sorry, I disagree with you here. As far milk, I only drink skim. I never cared for 2% or more because it always seemed like it coated my throat with slime. Skim doesn't do that. Skim milk is also fat free. Personally, I used to be paranoid about the fat content of food/drinks, but I have found out that is it more important to watch the carbohydrate content — especially sugars. Skim milk has around 11g per serving. Fruit juices on the other hand are quite a bit more. I've seen Orange juice with 24G, Apple with 29g, a mixed juice with 34g. If you want to be completely healthy you can only drink water (no carbs, no fat), but that does get a bit boring. Diet soft drinks have no carbs also. However, studies have shown that people tend to think if they switch to diet soda that they can eat what they want. Diet soft drinks do not contribute to obesity, but people's perception that they can eat anything because they are drinking diet soda is completely wrong.

3 March 2008
at 9:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

“But several family farmers producing rbST-free milk say the milk is of better quality”

Is this actually capable of being proved?

If the story is correct, and these hormones cannot be detected, then it seems like a situation ripe with potential for consumer fraud.
3 March 2008
at 9:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…

Hy-Vee actually claims their standard Hy-Vee brand is hormone free, and always has been.
3 March 2008
at 9:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Stain (Anonymous) says…

dirkleisure (Anonymous) says:
Hy-Vee actually claims their standard Hy-Vee brand is hormone free, and always has been.

If it isn't labeled, they must not be 100% sure that 100% of their milk qualifies. Otherwise why don't they label it?
3 March 2008
at 9:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

person184 (Anonymous) says…

Here's a very easy way to make your opinion known. I don't think the FDA knows beyond a reasonable doubt that hormone treated milk is the same. There has not been enough time to evaluate long-term effects. And I want to know what I am buying. I am trying to switch to soymilk, but I can't make the break completely…love milk in my coffee.
https://community.hsus.org/humane/leg…
3 March 2008
at 9:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…

~~Milk from cows treated with these hormones is the same as those not treated~~

Except for test to see if there are elevated levels of growth hormone.
3 March 2008
at 9:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Stain (Anonymous) says…

I recall a few years ago there was a problem in Mexico with very young girls maturing, sexually, very early and much earlier than had been the trend in the past. This problem was traced to hormones in the milk they were drinking - growth hormones being fed to the cows. I will try to Google that story up.
3 March 2008
at 9:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kugrad (Anonymous) says…

Drink what you want, let others drink what they want. Labeling hurts no one. Having tried a large variety of milks from the Merc and Dillons, I can say there is a definite taste difference between these smaller dairies and the big dairies we all know. If some people feel that milk free from a certain hormone tastes better, then that is enough reason to allow the label.

This is such an obvious case of a large lobby trying to hurt small competition that one would have to be pretty stupid to conclude that this legislation arises from concern over public health.
3 March 2008
at 9:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Stain (Anonymous) says…

Find your state legislators and their contact info here:
http://www.ipsr.ku.edu/ksdata/vote/

The chairman of this committee is:
taddiken@senate.state.ks.us

3 March 2008
at 9:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…

Alright. That does it. I hereby claim a new Internet/Chat term.

GTS: Google that Stuff( or appropriate expletive for fecal matter)
3 March 2008
at 9:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

Mexico?

How about here?
3 March 2008
at 9:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Stain (Anonymous) says…

person 184 says:
I am trying to switch to soymilk, but I can't make the break completely:love milk in my coffee.

Have you tried goat milk in coffee? It is much creamier than whole cow's milk. I'm told that in Copenhagen, where a cup of coffee is a sublime experience (excellent coffee served very formally with a doily and a piece of chocolate), goat milk is always served with coffee (instead of cow's cream).
3 March 2008
at 9:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jrlii (Anonymous) says…

I'm not particularly concerned about rBST or rBGH.

However, I am very concerned about the routine use of antibiotics in food animals. Animals should not be given antibiotics in their feed, doing so breeds antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Only sick animals should be given antibiotics, and they should be given enough to squash the infection,

There are common production practices, principally confined animal feeding operations (feed lots, hog heavens, chicken factories) where the sheer concentration - and ease of contagion - requires routine medication of the critters to be profitable.
3 March 2008
at 9:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Stain (Anonymous) says…

The topic here is not whether growth hormone in milk hurts people; it is whether a dairy producer has the right to label his product and whether the consumer has a right to that information.

That said…

There is substantial evidence that growth hormone DOES make milk less safe for consumption.
http://www.mercola.com/2002/feb/27/rb…
3 March 2008
at 9:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Eride (Anonymous) says…

Another great effort by our Kansas legislature. Why should the people have a right to know what is in our food?
3 March 2008
at 10:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Mkh (Anonymous) says…

No difference between organic and non-organic milk? HA!

I see the lies of Monsanto, the FDA, and the idiot public are being pushed with earnest this morning. Folks get yourself educated about the dangers of non-organic dairy and how Monsanto is slowly poisoning you and your family.

If you have children, especially young boys, Please, I beg you…Do Not give them Non-Organic Milk with growth hormones!

I strongly recommend this ground breaking book on the dangers of genetically modified foods and the deception Monsanto and the FDA are committing against the public.
www.amazon.com/Seeds-Deception-Govern…

www.seedsofdeception.com

This bill must be stopped! The public has a right to know what is being put into our food and dairy products, but we will be continually deceived by big business and government until we demand to know.
3 March 2008
at 10:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

FatTony (Anonymous) says…

gr-
“I mean, would it be wrong to label something as “no added salt”, “no added sugar” if it doesn't have added salt or sugar?”

No it would would not be misleading however just because there is No Added Sugar or Salt it doesn't mean those products aren't high in sugar or salt naturally. Thats why its misleading. The label in itself leads a poorly informed and educated public to believe that the product contains little salt or sugar. Just like saying Hormone free leads people to believe it must be better, when in effect its the same.

3 March 2008
at 10:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Eride (Anonymous) says…

“No it would would not be misleading however just because there is No Added Sugar or Salt it doesn't mean those products aren't high in sugar or salt naturally. Thats why its misleading. The label in itself leads a poorly informed and educated public to believe that the product contains little salt or sugar. Just like saying Hormone free leads people to believe it must be better, when in effect its the same.”

So because the public is “poorly” informed it is fine for the legislature to pass laws banning the labeling of accurate and factual information on products?

This isn't communism buddy.
3 March 2008
at 10:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Mkh (Anonymous) says…

Although the FDA is a bought and paid for corrupt puppet of big business who refuses to protect the public, there is plenty of independant research and reporting available on the link between bovine hormones and serious health problems such as cancer.

All of Europe has already banned bovine hormones and most GMOs, Australia, Japan, and California have also banned bovine hormones…however our government says everything is okay.

This is just some the info that Monsanto and the FDA don't want you to know:

www.cqs.com/rbgh.htm www.preventcancer.com/consumers/gener…
www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/foodsa…
www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/bgh.htm
www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0…
www.awionline.org/farm/rbgh.htm
www.rense.com/health3/milkhormone_h.htm
www.associatedcontent.com/article/213…
www.rifeenergymedicine.com/BGH.html
www.vvv.com/healthnews/milk.html
3 March 2008
at 10:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Poon (Anonymous) says…

As the music played
The faster did we dance
We felt it more than once
The start of our romance

I can't help it, the title of the article made me think of that great British band…
3 March 2008
at 10:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansas778 (Anonymous) says…

Take the time to read this if you want to know the truth about the rBGH in your children's milk. Excerpt from How to Eat, Move and Be Healthy! :

“The use of rBGH is approved in the US by the FDA which state that, 'no significant difference has been shown between milk from treated and untreated cows.' This statement, which is found on milk labels, is based on minimal, short-term research done on rats, by Monsanto scientists—this is akin to asking the devil to run studies on evil! Studies on rBGH also have inconsistencies. (n.33) For example:
*The only human study involving rBGH was done over 50 years ago, in which dwarves were given the hormone to see if they would grow—they did not.
*In one of the studies, cows treated with the hormone were getting sick and gave birth to cows with genetic deformities, though the FDA withheld much of this data. Monsanto said that out of 10,000 dairy farmers and 800,000 cows, they only received 95 complaints (those were from the farmers, but there were likely many more from the cows). The FDA actually received complaints concerning nearly 9,500 cows contracting mastis—the infection that creates pus which can in turn pass into milk.
*Enormous spleen growths (in rats) were considered to be “statistically insignificant.” The spleen is part of the lymphatic and immune systems, which manufactures red and white blood cells.
*In one study conducted by Monsanto, all of the animals treated with rBGH got cancer, even the animals orally ingesting this new hormone. This study was reviewed by ex-Monsanto employees who were working for the FDA at the time the study was conducted.
3 March 2008
at 10:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansas778 (Anonymous) says…

Another issue with the use of rBGH is that it increases levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) in the cow's milk. IGF-1 is a powerful growth hormone in the human body and is identical in both cows and humans. One of the major concerns with milk containing increased concentrations of IGF-1 secondary to rBGH use is that the growth hormone makes existing cancers grow. Pasteurization has little effect on IGF-1 levels. Humans receive the IGF-1 molecule rom a cow through consuming its milk and the human body will treat it as its own. Drinking one glass of untreated milk will nearly double levels of IGF-1 in the body. One glass of treated milk will increase IGF-1 levels even more, as a much as nine-fold, according to Robert Cohen, author of Milk the Deadly Poison. (n.33)

Increased IGF-1 concentrations have been associated with breast cancer, human colorectal tumors and colon cancer growth. (n.34) IGF-1 is an autocrine and endocrine growth regulator that accelerates various types of cancer. (n.35) IGF-1 activity is significantly higher in cancer extracts, suggesting that higher IGF-1 activity in cancer tissue is involved in regulating growth of thyroid cancer cells. (n. 36)”

n.33 Cohen, Robert. Milk the Deadly Poison. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Argus Publishing, 1998.

n.34 Atiq, et al. “Alterations in serum levels of insulin-like growth factors and insulin-like growth factor-binding proteins in patients with colorectal cancer.” Int. J. Cancer, May 15, 1994, 57(4), pp. 491-497.

n.35 Gillespie, J. et al. “Inhibition of pancreatic cancer cell growth in vitro by the tyrphostin group of tyrosine kinase inhibitors.” Br.J. Cancer, December, 1993, 68(6), pp. 1122-1126.

n.36 Yashiro, T. et al. “Increased activity of insulin-like growth factor-binding protein in human thyroid papillary cancer tissue.” Jpn. J. Cancer. Res., January 1994, 85(1), pp. 46-52.
3 March 2008
at 10:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jumpin_catfish (Anonymous) says…

This is bull I mean cow or is it just crap! This is a bill with special interest written all over it. I am not mislead by the label on the milk at the merc but it sure looks like the opponents to the labeling have something to hide.
3 March 2008
at 11:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says…

I wonder why our free market people aren't chiming in on this? Oh yeah, the corporations are always right.
3 March 2008
at 11:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansas778 (Anonymous) says…

dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says:

I wonder why our free market people aren't chiming in on this? Oh yeah, the corporations are always right.
*******************
The free market people have been chiming in, you just aren't smart enough to notice it.

3 March 2008
at 12:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dorothyhr (Dorothy Hoyt-Reed) says…

Sorry, I was talking about RT and Marion. Aren't they the leaders of free market?
3 March 2008
at 1:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ralphralph (Anonymous) says…

I'm surprised at the uproar on this specific issue … as there are so many instances of misleading labels on the grocery shelf. All the 'low-fat' stuff packed with high-fructose corn syrup … there's no fat until you eat it, and turn all that sugar into artery clogging fat. We're owned by the big money that controls those who make and enforce the laws. Unless we are ready to do something about that, we need to quit whining and just have another Twinkie.
3 March 2008
at 1:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

storm (Anonymous) says…

Don't drink cow milk - it's for baby cows, duh. Besides, it hasn't been healthy for a long, long time. Instead choose almond or coconut milk. I'd suggest soy but we have so much soy in our diet, let's not add more estrogen.
3 March 2008
at 2:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Logan5 (Anonymous) says…

This article seems to focus on hormones. Aren't the antibiotics the more important issue?

http://www.mercola.com/article/milk/n…

“Milk and refined sugar make two of the largest contributions to food induced ill health in our country. That may seem like an overly harsh statement, but when one examines the evidence, this is a reasonable conclusion.”
3 March 2008
at 2:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

countrygirl (Anonymous) says…

Wasn't it Iwig that got into trouble for not paying some sort of tax?
3 March 2008
at 3:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

fletch (Anonymous) says…

Even if milk from a hormone injected cow is 100% identical to milk from a non-injected cow, I 'll take the one that is free of hormones. I like the peace of mind knowing the cow was raised naturally and treated humanely instead of crammed into a gate, given artificial feed, and injected full of hormones.
3 March 2008
at 4:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

Mexico..
I know someone who lived down there as a child in the late 50's.
Knowing what his early experiences were down there, and the age of the girls involved (older than him by a few)…
yes, they were mature beyond their years, but who knows if they were subjected to growth hormones back then.
3 March 2008
at 5:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“No it would would not be misleading however just because there is No Added Sugar or Salt it doesn't mean those products aren't high in sugar or salt naturally.”

Would you rather have no labels? Or false labels? What's wrong with true factual labels? And, like I said before, one could argue that it's very misleading to say milk is “good” for you. Maybe milk shouldn't be allowed to be sold - problem solved!

FatTony, give an example of a product high in sugar or salt naturally. Items like Sea Kelp do not count.

–––-

“The use of rBGH is approved in the US by the FDA which state that, 'no significant difference has been shown between milk from treated and untreated cows.' ”

No significant difference. Is that 100% no significant difference in all aspects? Not likely that anyone could measure everything. So, it must mean no significant difference in what they measured. But, what did they measure? Taste? Affect on the drinker? Affect on sales in stores? (Sounds like there was a significant difference there) How about chemical content?

This sounds so much like a “20% more” claim. More what? More content? More container? More price? More advertising? More than before? More than competitors?

3 March 2008
at 5:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KansanInUtah (Anonymous) says…

The bill in the Kansas legislature seems to be part of a larger push for this kind of anti-labeling legislation:
http://www.sltrib.com//ci_8398823?IAD…

One wonders (or *I* wonder, at least) which hormone company or dairy conglomerate is courting conservative legislators in the West.
3 March 2008
at 6:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

classclown (Anonymous) says…

gr (Anonymous) says:

FatTony, give an example of a product high in sugar or salt naturally. Items like Sea Kelp do not count.

=========================================

C&H and Mortons respectively.

:P
3 March 2008
at 6:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KLATTU (Anonymous) says…

“The Food and Drug Administration has determined there is no significant difference between milk from rbST treated cows and non-rbST treated cows.”

Of course, they are funded, errr… lobbied by Monsanto. The FDA can't find a difference, but Japan, Australia, Canada, the European Union, and most other developed nations except the USA have banned the use of bovine growth hormone in human food production. Their scientists say it causes cancer. The silliest thing is that we don't even need the extra milk the BGH is used for; so much extra milk is produced in the USA that we dump it in the ocean.
3 March 2008
at 6:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Stain (Anonymous) says…

Anyone who believes the dairyman who says bovine growth hormone cannot be detected in milk, or who thinks this is not a big deal, think again, and please read this before you decide whether to contact your state legislators.

http://notmilk.com/lymphoma.html
3 March 2008
at 7:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KsTwister (Anonymous) says…

Thanks for removing my post LJW, makes what came after look ridiculous. This paper could not possibly be using others comments for your own? Or are you?
3 March 2008
at 8:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

Okay everyone, here's your chance to make a Milkman Dan comic about this.

http://monkeydyne.com/rmcs/buildmeat….

Let's see who comes up with a great one!
3 March 2008
at 9 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cabree (Anonymous) says…

I am up in the air on the issue. If you are going to label the product, you need to be able to test the product for the hormone. All milk is antibiotic free because it is tested on every pick up from the farm. At this time there is no test for the BST hormone. If BSt would be taken off the market, the farm would be better off. The milk price would rise because less milk would be on the market. The reason for using the product BSt, is it boost the a cows milk 8 to 10 pound per day. As a consumer I understand the reason you would want it to be labled. But there is no proof that the BST isn't in the product.
As far as organic milk, how do you know it's organic? Several years ago a farm to be certified, had to be free of chemicals for 3 to 5 years. Well then organic milk sales picked up so demand increased, now even some large dairies are claiming to be organic now. Ok, tell me how that can be? The farms buy replacement heifers for the farms, you can not find 6000 cows that have never had a shot or been feed corn, alfafa, and brome hay that has not had fertilizer, or cemicial sprayed on it. Again no test for these are out there.
As far as soy milk, well let just say, I wouldn't drink that for sure. Beans which is where soy come from, is a lot of times round up ready seed, and spray is also used to kill the weeds that keep the field weed free and allows the beans to grow. monsanto is your problem not milk.
So the best solution would be to take BSt of the market, and your milk would be BST hormone free.
4 March 2008
at 12:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says…

OK, so I didn't read through all of the posts, but I did see one near the top saying something like “if I can take penicillin, why can't Bessie.” Well, they don't give dairy cows, or meat cows for that matter, antibiotics to keep them from getting infections. It might have a secondary effect of doing that (and producing virulent antibiotic-resistant E-Coli strains in the guts of cattle), but the primary purpose if giving cattle antibiotics is that it increases their growth rate. If Bessie had an infection, then they might give her penicillin, but the antibiotics in question here are not administered for fighting infections.

4 March 2008
at 7:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

“C&H and Mortons respectively.”

Ok, you got me on Mortons, except that would fall under my disclaimer of products like Sea Kelp. So there! :-P

However, I'm not sure many would consider C&H as “natural” as such refined products is the point of objection.

–––––––—

“If you are going to label the product, you need to be able to test the product for the hormone.”

Cow.
The claim said nothing about it not being in the milk, but not in the cow. Antibiotics were not in the milk.
5 March 2008
at 3:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

echo (sara casa) says…

i think you should stop these hormones because these cows are catching diseases. like human beings do! what happens to us?
isent that crulty to animals? and those new ones… oh great a plant and cows with sharp then dull teeth then oh great huge or little bitty cows for you and me?also they were impregnated sweetie rest did that hurt? farmers you are killing us! oh no the cows are spawning! glass and plastic please!
5 March 2008
at 5:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gr (Anonymous) says…

echo, did you drink the same thing as Northtown did?

It's not “farmers” killing us. It's large scale corporate farms.

Plastic is bad for the environment and non-renewable. Some stores are switching to paper only.
3 March 2009
at 3:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mcontrary (Anonymous) says…

It is the large dairies (in which at least one legislator is an investor) that are pushing for this bill, no matter the wishes of consumers who should have the choice to choose the products they prefer. Sound off to members of the committee considering the bill. Their email addresses are here, ready for pasting into the address section of your mail program: lisa.benlon@house.ks.gov; anthony.brown@house.ks.gov; richard.carlson@house.ks.gov; nile.dillmore@house.ks.gov; stan.frownfelter@house.ks.gov; pat.george@house.ks.gov ; mario.goico@house.ks.gov ; raj.goyle@house.ks.gov; gary.hayzlett@house.ks.gov; jeff.king@house.ks.gov ; marvin.kleeb@house.ks.gov ; steve.lukert@house.ks.gov; melody.mccray-miller@house.ks.gov; virgil.peck@house.ks.gov; larry.powell@house.ks.gov; gene.rardin@house.ks.gov; marc.rhoades@house.ks.gov; don.schroeder@house.ks.gov; sharon.schwartz@house.ks.gov; arlen.siegfreid@house.ks.gov; kay.wolf@house.ks.gov;
3 March 2009
at 4 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

“The spleen is part of the lymphatic and immune systems, which manufactures red and white blood cells. ”

Should we believe everything else you cut-n-pasted, Ks778?