Kansas rbGH-free Label Ban Up For a Vote in the House

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 05:44:07 AM PDT

What? Yikes!

Bad News in Kansas on rbGH-Free Labeling

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 15:16:17 PM PDT

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.

Pro-rbGH Crowd Up to Its No-Good Tricks Again

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 13:06:35 PM PST

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.

Late Night Sampler Platter

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 21:00:00 PM PST

• Chinese-made milk powder produced by Danone is officially melamine-free.

• The LA Times provides slow cooker food safety tips.

• Organic Consumers Association offers up an excerpt from Toxic Sludge is Good for You. It's one of my favorite books, and I highly recommend checking out the excerpt - if not the entire book. Reading it makes you feel like you turned the light on and just now discovered that you'd been fumbling in the dark before now.

• Also from Organic Consumers Association, why does the Washington State WIC claim organic milk has no nutritional benefit?

• Check this out: You can make seed-starting pots from newspapers.

• Natasha Chart is into Pigs Gone Wild. No, it's not a sick video of pigs on spring break. Apparently wild pigs in Texas as causing $52 million per year in crop damage.

• Civil Eats applauds Dannon for going rbGH-free... but scolds Kansas for trying to ban rbGH-free labels.

• Marion Nestle recommends a few books on meat: Righteous Porkchop by Nicolette Hahn Niman and Raising Steaks by Betty Fussell.

• Nestle also comments on growing portion sizes in The Joy of Cooking.

• Should Bay Area residents choose local pork or Midwestern pork? The Ethicurean has a full-fledged debate with Bonnie calling for eating local and Samin Nosrat taking the other side.

Dannon Follows Yoplait and Goes rbGH-Free!

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Feb 24, 2009 at 12:00:00 PM PST

And, like General Mills, Dannon makes no claims about the safety or cruelty of rbGH, saying only that "the move is a result of consumer feedback."

"This is a response to our market evaluation and consumer preference," Dannon's senior director of public relations Michael Neuwirth told DairyReporter.com.

Another point Dannon made is that its three plants (in Utah, Texas, and Ohio) are affected by the dairies near each plant.

"It's very much a regional question. In Ohio, for example, nearly all milk in that region is already rBST-free, whereas in Texas it is less so," explained Neuwirth.

With Dannon and Yoplait already rbGH-free, the rest of the yogurt market is at a competitive disadvantage if it does not follow along. And of course, kudos to the companies and brands that had the foresight to make this move long before General Mills or Dannon did.

Afternoon Sampler Platter

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 12:54:49 PM PST

• Paula Crossfield of Civil Eats embarks on a new rooftop garden, which she will document step by step on her blog.

• Tom Laskawy wonders about the impact of Wal-Mart on our incomes.

• CSPI's ticked at Topps Candy Co (CEO'd by Michael Eisner) for using preteen girls to market junk.

• Change.org tells about four must-see sustainable ag documentaries: Food Inc., The Garden, Growing Awareness, and The Real Dirt on Farmer John.

• Marion Nestle giggles over the idea of organic Coke. It's a joke - hopefully.

• Eat Well Guide's Green Fork Blog writes up a small farm in Maine.

• Tom Philpott gawks over Thomas Friedman's new love of all things green (as do I). Is this for real? Or is it just a fluke. Call me a skeptic, but I think it's a fluke. When Friedman goes vegan and puts solar panels on his roof, THEN I'll believe he's actually committed to environmentalism.

• Obama Foodorama has the newest pick-up line for our times: Is that pork in your package, or are you just trying to stimulate me? Uhhh... I'm not sure I want to know the answer to that one. This is a family blog!

• Organic Consumers Association brings us this action alert: Tell Dannon to drop rbGH! The good news is that Dannon is on its way to doing just that. They claim they are already 80% rbGH-free. Two of their 3 plants are going rbGH-free by Q309, and the 3rd plant will follow soon after.

A Victory! American Cancer Society Revises Position on rbGH!

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 18:11:56 PM PST

More details from their statement:

• "The available evidence documents adverse health effects from rBGH on cows."

• "The evidence for potential harm to humans is inconclusive.  There is as yet no evidence that the consumption of milk produced using rBGH adds substantively to circulating IGF-1 levels in humans or to the risk of developing cancer.  The increased use of antibiotics to treat rBGH-induced mastitis does promote the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria, although the extent to which these are transmitted to humans is unclear."

In other words, it's bad for cows, but we don't know yet if it's bad for people. That approximates the facts as I understand them too, but I'd prefer to skip the rbGH because it's bad for cows and because we also don't know that it's NOT bad for people.

rbGH in the Media

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 08:35:40 AM PST

Consumer Demand, Not Safety, Led General Mills to Ditch rbGH - This article does not make the claim that rbGH is actually safe - it just says that General Mills did not take sides on the safety of the product. Its decision was based on marketing.

The article's author has her own opinion:

Are artificial hormones actually unsafe? I won't pretend to be qualified to answer that question. There are studies and scientists supporting both sides of the issue (though when it comes to possible but unproven cancer links, my personal instinct is to err on the side of caution).

However, regardless of whether or not the artificial hormones are potentially risky for humans, there is a general agreement that they're bad for cows. Cows taking the hormones get more udder infections - and when cows get sick, farmers give them antibiotics, "the residues of which also may end up in milk and dairy products," as the Center for Food Safety explains.

These residues can cause allergic reactions in sensitive individuals and contribute to the growth of antibiotic resistant bacteria, further undermining the efficacy of some antibiotics in fighting human infections.

To me, the whole thing sounds like a pretty bad idea. But it also seems pretty unlikely that the FDA will change its rules on rBGH any time soon. Instead, I predict we'll see more even more companies deciding, like GM, to cater to the common consumer perception that injecting cows with artificial hormones is, at the very least, kind of creepy.

More below...

Congrats to Yoplait! Dannon, You're Next!

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 10:26:21 AM PST

You see, rbGH increases a hormone called IGF-1 (a hormone linked to breast cancer in humans) in cows and in their milk. Yet Yoplait runs a major publicity campaign asking consumers to send in their pink Yoplait lids to increase Yoplait's donation to fight breast cancer. Congratulations Yoplait, you are now walking your talk - or at least, you will by this August.

Latecomer or not to the rbGH-free world, Yoplait wasted no time patting themselves on the back in typical corporate fashion:

In an e-mail announcement sent out Friday, Yoplait noted that it's the first leading yogurt brand to go "rbGH-free," which may come as a surprise to companies such as Stonyfield, Nancy's, Cascade Fresh, Brown Cow, and other organic industry leaders, all of which have been in the forefront of the movement to reject the synthetic hormone in milk products.

Nice job, Yoplait. Dannon, you listening?

UPDATE: Yoplait's press release is out! See it below.

Sustainable Agriculture CODE BLUE - Your Help Needed Now!

by: Jill Richardson

Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 17:26:24 PM PST

As you know, I've been advocating the "Sustainable Dozen" chosen by Food Democracy Now (go there and sign their petition!) as candidates for USDA Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary positions. Several of these Sustainable Dozen, including Chuck Hassebrook were being seriously considered. And then... a few DC-type people spoke up against him. What??? This election was a victory for CHANGE. So why is anyone being heeded when they advocate an anti-change agenda??

The names now up for Deputy USDA Secretary are nasty pro-industrial ag, anti-sustainable ag people like the Big Bad Dennis Wolff of Pennsylvania. Wolff is known for unilaterally deciding that Pennsylvanians do not have a right to know whether their milk has artificial growth hormones in it or not (a policy that was thankfully overturned by the PA governor after much consumer outcry).

Furthermore, Joy Philippi, former past president of the National Pork Producers Council, co-chair the Rural Americans for Hillary is being considered for an under secretary position. The National Pork Producers Council is the lobby group for hog factory farms. That means we'd be installing the fox in the henhouse every bit as completely as Bush did during his eight years. Again, this is going against what Obama promised us, as he has promised to have an administration free of lobbyists.

Putting Dennis Wolff or others like him in as the #2 at the USDA would be an end to any hope for change in American agriculture during Obama's time as President. And if this election was a victory for Hope and Change, then choosing Wolff as Deputy Secretary (or another person with similar ideas as him) would directly violate what the people of this great country voted for on November 4.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

1. Post about this on your blog.
2. Sign the petition at Food Democracy Now.
3. Write your Senator and Representative today. The best thing you can do right now is to send an email or a fax (as opposed to calling or sending snail mail). You can find your Representative here and your Senator here. Ask them to speak to the Obama transition team about this. Ask them to support reform candidates like Chuck Hassebrook or others in the Sustainable Dozen for USDA Deputy Secretary and to oppose anti-sustainable ag candidates like Dennis Wolff.
4. Email a link to this blog post to your friends and ask them to take action as well.

More on the Kansas rbGH Hearing

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 15:51:17 PM PST

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.

Dennis Wolff and the USDA - Update

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Dec 02, 2008 at 16:57:00 PM PST

Well now it gets worse. There's been quite a bit of speculation over the new Ag Secretary and we've learned a little bit. Collin Peterson (D-MN) and Tom Vilsack aren't in the running, it would seem. Hallelujah. Although it seems like other than Vilsack's support of biotech he might not be a bad guy. Not that it matters if he's out of the running.

But who is in the running? A name has surfaced that no one initially suspected. Dennis Wolff, evil Secretary of Agriculture in the great state of Pennsylvania. And it looks like he might get the job.

The rBGH-Free Labeling Fight Goes On in Kansas

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 14:49:24 PM PST

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.

Wal-Mart is Going rBGH-Free

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 09:00:00 AM PST

No rBGH in Our Schools!

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 06:00:00 AM PST

From the human health standpoint, IGF-1,a substance produced in our bodies by rBGH, may increase the risk of cancers of the breast, prostate, colon, lung and bone, according to Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports. From the animal welfare point of view, rBGH is terribly inhumane, causing swollen, painful udders and frequent infections, which, of course, mean more antibiotic treatment (and residues in dairy products). - Plenty Magazine

Does that sound like something we want to serve children in public schools? I say no. Calcium is great, but why subject children to future risk of cancers unnecessarily. So many large dairies are already rBGH-free that it should not be logistically complicated to keep milk from cows treated with rBGH out of schools. Please, email or snail mail your Representative and your Senators asking them to add a provision to the upcoming Child Nutrition Reauthorization to get the rBGH out of our schools.