|
Kansas 
Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 18:11:57 PM PDT
|
In one of Kathleen Sebelius' last days as Governor of Kansas, she did an amazing and perhaps unexpected thing. She vetoed a bill that would have "made it more difficult for dairy farmers who don't use recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH) to label their milk as such" (in the words of Dr. Michael Hansen from Consumers Union). We (and by "we" I mean:
Kansas farms, consumer groups and businesses Catalpa Grove Gardens, Pretty Prairie, Community Mercantile Consumer Coop, Creek Four Mill, Iwig Family Dairy, Janzen Family Farms, Kansas City Food Circle, Kayala Emu Estates, Hesston, Larson Acres, Little Red Hen Bakery, Norm's Flour, Sierra Club Kansas Chapter, Spring Creek Ranch, Wichitaw Food Coop, AllergyKids, Breast Cancer Action, The Cornucopia Institute, Organic Consumers Association, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, Center for Media and Democracy, Consumers Union, Family Farm Defenders, Food and Water Watch, The Humane Society of the United States, Institute for Responsible Technology, National Family Farm Coalition, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, Organic Farming Research Foundation, Sierra Club, and Stonyfield Farm, Inc.
... and me) have been asking Sebelius to veto this bill since it passed the Kansas state legislature a few weeks ago. I, for one, did not expect her to actually veto it. I am THRILLED that she did veto it and even more thrilled that a public servant who obviously listens to citizens' opinions as well as science will soon take the reins at the Department of Heath and Human Services, which overseas the FDA. The FDA is the agency that legalized the growth hormone rbGH in the first place and I hope to see that decision reversed under Sebelius based on all of the facts that have been revealed since the hormone was first legalized in the early 1990s.
Sebelius' statement from her veto as well as several reactions from various leaders in the food community are posted below.
|
|
There's More...
:: (3
Comments, 393 words in story)
|
|
Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 21:47:05 PM PDT
|
Kansas Governor and HHS Secretary-to-be Kathleen Sebelius faces rbGH issues everywhere she turns. In her home state of Kansas, a coalition including farmers, environmental groups, and others is asking her to veto a bill about rbGH-free labeling:
The measure requires dairy products claiming to be from cows that don't receive injections of artificial bovine growth hormone to include a disclaimer on their labels.
The qualifier must state that the Food and Drug Administration has found no significant differences between milk from cows supplemented by the hormone, commonly known as rbST or rBGH, and milk from cows that are not.
But Sebelius is headed to the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the FDA. And the FDA legalized rbGH back in 1993. A lot of new science has come out about the hormone in the last decade and a half, and Sebelius might have to revisit the issue once she gets to DC. Will her decision on signing or vetoing the bill be a hint about how she'll act at HHS?
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 12:59:21 PM PDT
|
- Carlos Santana wants Obama to legalize pot. And I'm sorry, Mr. President, but if legendary rockstar Carlos Santana wants you to do something, you do it. So - you'll be pushing that bill through Congress after the recess, then?
- Several large biodiesel producers aren't making any fuel. (Note to readers: If your car runs on biodiesel, you can get it converted to run on SVO. McDonalds - and every Chinese restaurant in America - is STILL making fuel for you.)
- This Blago article has nothing to do with food but it is soooo funny I'm including it anyway. "Hey, you've just been indicted on federal racketeering charges, what are you going to do now?" Blago went to Disney World!
- Alternet gives us 8 ways to join the local food movement. And I'm proposing #9: Blog on this site :)
- Remember that NYT article about the food revolution? Tom Laskawy weighs in with his opinions. I called it a hit piece, he calls it a reality check. Interesting.
- Natasha got to see Food, Inc and she has a nice write up on it. I am sooo jealous. I've only seen a few clips.
- A Kansan writes about the local food movement in Kansas.
- Civil Eats features an interview with Gary Nabhan, author of Where Our Food Comes From.
- From Grist: CDC finds rocket fuel chemical in baby formula. Newsflash to the CDC: The same chemical, perchlorate, is also found in cow's milk and even human breast milk. Houston, we have a problem.
- Obama Foodorama reports on the Obamas' meal by Jamie Oliver at the G20 summit. As she points out, the simplicity of the meal was a good choice - as opposed to a previous meeting in which world leaders discussed global poverty and hunger and then gorged on an 8-course feast. Can I just say here that I have a little crush on Jamie Oliver?
- The Ethicurean features a piece arguing that the cost of local meat is too high. The argument presented is that when a farmer raises only a few animals, they compensate for their lack of volume with high mark-ups. The author believes that these farmers should raise more animals and charge lower prices. If this can be accomplished humanely and sustainably, I'm for it.
|
|
Discuss
:: (7
Comments)
|
|
Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 05:44:07 AM PDT
|
|
The rbGH-free label ban is coming up for a vote in Kansas. So says Hutchnews.com. In fact, the title of the article says it all: "Milk labeling measure coming up for floor debate; Rep. Powell, in favor of the bill, doesn't think opposition will be much of an obstacle."
What? Yikes!
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 230 words in story)
|
|
Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 15:16:17 PM PDT
|
|
The Kansas House ag committee held a vote on a measure to ban rbGH-free labeling... and it passed. They held a hearing a week or so ago and it didn't look good for our side then. The bill is HB 2295. Next step is a vote before the full House. No word on anything from the Senate (yet).
If you live in Kansas, I recommend sending a letter to your state representative and signing up for email alerts by Food & Water Watch so you can follow this issue. If you do NOT live in Kansas, I don't recommend sending emails to the KS state leg at this time.
|
|
Discuss
:: (3
Comments)
|
|
Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 13:06:35 PM PST
|
|
Over the last year or two, several states have (more or less unsuccessfully) attempted to ban rbGH-free labels on milk. That is, if you DON'T use rbGH, you CAN'T say so on the label. This is INSANE obviously, because consumers show a strong preference for rbGH-free milk. It attempts to take away the marketing advantage from those who are producing milk the way consumers prefer.
Most of these fights have died down, but there is one that is absolutely RAGING right now. It's in the Kansas legislature. If HB 2295 passes:
labels that claimed milk was "hormone free" or "rbST free" or "rbGH free" or "BST free" would be prohibited outright. Labels that claimed the milk came from cows "not supplemented with rbST," or something similar, also would be banned unless the processor or bottler had an affidavit from the farmer and other "written documents that support the claim."
Labels also would have to carry these precise words in the same font and color: "The FDA has determined that no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-supplemented and non-rbST supplemented cows."
The Kansas House held a hearing last week. The next step is a vote within the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, which will only take place if it's likely to pass. We're hoping this will die in committee but we aren't counting on that yet. You can also see editorials on the matter here and here.
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 15:51:17 PM PST
|
|
Kansas has gotten so strange, I'm not even sure Dorothy would recognize it. While several other states have also tried to ban rbGH-free labels on dairy, Kansas seems more determined than most other states to actually go through with it. The labeling bans seemingly went out of vogue months ago, but Kansas held their hearing on the matter yesterday (as JayInPortland reported).
This issue began in Pennsylvania in 2007 when Dennis Wolff decided to ban anyone from labeling milk as rbGH-free. Fortunately Gov. Rendell overturned his decision and Pennsylvanians retained the right to know how their milk was produced. After Pennsylvania, other states took up this cause, supposedly because "all milk is the same" (it's not) and "labels confuse consumers" (they don't). The truth is that consumers do NOT want the cows who produce their milk treated with growth hormones. They've resoundingly rejected rbGH, so much so that Monsanto finally got out of the rbGH business. This is just a desperate last-ditch effort to keep using rbGH by a small minority who have not yet seen the light on it.
Here is what I've gathered from those who were there, as well as a smattering of articles written about the debate in Kansas papers.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 806 words in story)
|
|
Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 07:00:00 AM PST
|
The Agriculture Department of the State of Kansas has just decided that residents of that state don't deserve to know basic information about how their food is produced. They also believe that the First Amendment takes a backseat to the profits of biotech companies -
The Kansas Department of Agriculture held its final hearing on the matter Tuesday morning, considering a regulation that would ban dairy product labels from stating the product as "rBST free." The law would take effect in January 2010.
In addition to banning "rBST-free" claims, the rule would require that labels declaring products to have been derived from cows not supplemented with the growth hormone to carry companion disclaimers saying "the FDA has determined that no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBST-supplemented and non-rBST-supplemented cows."
I thought rats were usually said to jump off of sinking ships?
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 249 words in story)
|
|
Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 14:49:24 PM PST
|
|
The state of Kansas is trying to ban rBGH-free labels, just like several other states have tried to do over the past year. The newspaper headlines coming from Kansas on this are depressing.
An editorial appeared in the Hays Daily News November 16 that said the following:
First and foremost, cows apparently produce such growth hormones naturally. So even analysis in the laboratory cannot distinguish milk that comes from a "normal" cow or an artificially stimulated cow. So any label would be meaningless. ...
And if such acceptable guidance is determined, it more than likely would require extensive paper trails and an additional cadre of enforcement personnel to visit individual dairy farms. Since it is estimated more than 80 percent of state farmers do not use the artificial production boosters, those additional costs likely would be shared by consumers to monitor a minority of producers. ...
While we believe in full disclosure to consumers, we're not sure the proposed label will serve any real purpose. We get the feeling the Kansas Department of Agriculture doesn't either. In fact, it is accepting public comment at this time and will have a public hearing Dec. 2 in Topeka to discuss the matter.
Whoa, excuse me? Yes cows produce hormones naturally. No they don't produce SO MUCH of the hormones naturally. And yes the levels of one hormone in particular, IGF-1, do go up drastically in the milk when cows are treated with rBGH. IGF-1 is linked to cancer in humans.
Kansas, please speak up for your right to know how your food was produced! Take action by writing Gov. Sebelius and the Kansas Dept of Ag.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
|
|
