The Maine dairy that started a revolution...

Welcome! (4.00 / 7)

Hi, all.  First diary here.  Be gentle.

But of course!

Hello from the other Portland; 3,000 miles away in the great State of Oregon...

.....................

Good on Oakhurst Dairy, and every other one that took on Monsanto.

We ain't done yet, though...

"The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks." - Christopher Hitchens

---

by: JayinPortland @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 16:10:11 PM UTC

A friend in NH would always talk about Portland (4.00 / 2)

I, as most of America, assumed she meant Portland, OR. Only the upper east coasters assume Maine, lol.

Anyway, she would always get frustrated with me because she would never say Maine so my reference was always OR and we kept confusing each other.

Finally I told her that the bigger city wins. If you just say "Portland" the default is Oregon. If you mean Portland, ME you have to say "Maine".

Obviously Bill agrees because it is his sig line where yours is just "Jay in Portland"...no Oregon, lol.

So, when I move to Portland I might have to change mine to "Organicgurl in Port Land", Ha!

Take the eat local challenge! http://www.eatlocalchallenge.com/

---

by: Organicgurl @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 21:14:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the funny thing is that when I wanted to move (4.00 / 2)

to Portland, OR I would tell people I was moving to Portland and then they'd say "Which one?" So I started saying I was moving to Oregon and they'd STILL say "Which one?" because I lived about 10 miles away from a town in Wisconsin called Oregon at the time.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:52:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ha! That is funny. (4.00 / 1)

I wonder if there are other Tucson's in the US?

Take the eat local challenge! http://www.eatlocalchallenge.com/

---

by: Organicgurl @ Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:22:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And here's more: An editorial today... (4.00 / 8)

...by the Press Herald editorial board.  A snip:

Critics point out that hormone use boosts milk production, which lowers prices.

So, they argue, discouraging the use of the hormone is bad for consumers.

Hormone opponents claim that there are side effects from the use of hormones that may require farmers to use more antibiotics, which have a negative effect on the environment.

Either way, people should be able to know what goes into the products that they eat, and there are many who are wary about the use of biotechnology in food production. A significant group wants to buy hormone-free products.

Those consumers can thank Oakhurst for not giving into the pressure.

-

---

by: Bill in Portland Maine @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 16:39:03 PM UTC

Well, That Editorial (4.00 / 6)

is pretty spot-on.  It's not as though we're all out there in the streets demanding that hormone supplements like rBGH be banned immediately, but rather that dairies (and more broadly, other companies in other segments of the food sector) be permitted to make information available to the public.  Consumers aren't always stupid and lazy, and should have the opportunity to make an informed choice.  Knowledge is power, after all.  Then, it's up to the marketplace as to whether products such as those being heavily promoted by Monsanto gain acceptance or get pushed to the side.  If the claimed productivity gains were so substantial for dairies that use rBGH, consumers would see a significant price differential and be able to make their informed choice accordingly.

We do not seek a Nanny State, and there is no indication that efforts like the one begun by Oakhurst would be responsible for information overload.

And separately, I wonder how many more Portlands from around the world can be represented here . . .

---

by: The Maven @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 18:24:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ah, but they don't want us to know... (4.00 / 3)

Then, it's up to the marketplace as to whether products such as those being heavily promoted by Monsanto gain acceptance or get pushed to the side.

Therein lies the rub. They don't WANT us to know what is in our food. They have been successfully lying to us for decades and profiting from it. Why the hell would they want us to be able to make informed decisions? Disinformation is the key to politics and profit. An ever increasingly educated populace means the market place that the corporate welfare mongers so like to quote as "free markets", would in fact work closer to what economists preach about capitalism...let the consumer demand decide.

As we have witnessed with organics, as the consumer demand DID decide...increasingly that they want real food and not processed chemicals, those companies then have to step in and lie and fight to label their foods organic when they are not. If it were really about letting the market demand decide, they would have no problem with honestly labeling their crap.

Disinformation is their weapon.  

Take the eat local challenge! http://www.eatlocalchallenge.com/

---

by: Organicgurl @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 21:25:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If only we could get hormone-free politicians ;.) (4.00 / 4)

Good catch, BiPM! And hello.

Sic Transit Gloria Locavore!

---

by: Asinus Asinum Fricat @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 18:47:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

LMAO!!! (4.00 / 4)

The hormones aren't the problem. The ego is the issue. They think their Gods and can do whatever they want without consequences.

Take the eat local challenge! http://www.eatlocalchallenge.com/

---

by: Organicgurl @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 21:08:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks Bill! (4.00 / 3)

Glad to see you over here :) This is definitely a reason to be proud of your state.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 19:12:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is weird... (4.00 / 2)

"Critics point out that hormone use boosts milk production, which lowers prices. So, they argue, discouraging the use of the hormone is bad for consumers."

That is quite a disconnect. What does increased prices have to do with being 'bad for consumers'? They might drink less milk if the prices are higher but it sure isn't going to affect their health adversely or be "bad" for them. Frankly, most people would be healthier if they drank less milk, particularly the pasteurized cow's milk.  

Take the eat local challenge! http://www.eatlocalchallenge.com/

---

by: Organicgurl @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 21:19:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

hmm, why don't consumers do EVERYTHING (4.00 / 2)

that makes things cheaper. Maybe if they added water to the milk it would make it cheaper too. Should we do that?

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 05:53:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Funny you should say that... (4.00 / 1)

we used to do that to stretch our milk out. It basically becomes skim milk, lol.  

Take the eat local challenge! http://www.eatlocalchallenge.com/

---

by: Organicgurl @ Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 06:24:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hi, Bill. (4.00 / 3)

What a pleasure seeing you over here. Love your posts on DKos.

I remember that case and reading several articles about it.

I don't trust anything Wal-Mart says they are doing. Especially since they teamed up with Monsanto in 2006 to take over the India ag industry...thanks to the US and Indian governments aka Oman deal.

Take the eat local challenge! http://www.eatlocalchallenge.com/

---

by: Organicgurl @ Tue Aug 12, 2008 at 21:06:21 PM UTC