d>
Microsoft Word - Document1
November 11, 2007
THE FEED
Consumers Wont Know What
Theyre Missing
By ANDREW MARTIN
THE Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture has decided
that consumers are too dim to make their own shopping
decisions. Agriculture officials in Ohio are contemplating a
similar decision.
As of Jan. 1, Pennsylvania is banning labels on milk and
dairy products that say it comes from cows that havent been
treated with artificial bovine growth hormone, which is
sometimes known as rBGH or rBST. State officials say the
labels are confusing and impossible to verify.
If you have stepped into the dairy aisle anytime recently, you
have probably noticed that some of the milk now for sale has
a carton label saying it is free of artificial growth hormones.
Consumers are demanding it, and a growing number of milk
bottlers, grocery stores and retail chains have taken notice.
It might not surprise you to learn that
Whole Foods Market
,
Trader Joes and
Starbucks
offer rBGH-free milk. But
Kroger
, Publix and Costco also use it for their house brands. And Dean Foods, the nations largest milk bottler, has told
suppliers in some regions of the country like the Northeast
and Texas that they should make the transition to milk
without the artificial hormone.
Farmers use artificial bovine growth hormone to increase a
cows milk production by a gallon or more a day. The federal
government maintains that it is perfectly safe, but it remains
illegal in many other countries and critics continue to
question its safety. Regardless, many American consumers
buy rBGH-free milk because they are uncomfortable with the
idea of milk that comes from cows that have been shot full of
artificial hormones and because its cheaper than organic
milk, which, of course, doesnt allow use of the artificial
hormones. But the backlash against rBGH has unsettled its
manufacturer,
Monsanto
, and the dairy farmers who have
come to rely on it to raise production. They have spent more
than a decade trying to persuade federal and state authorities
to ban or restrict non-rBGH labels on the grounds that there
is no difference in milk from cows that are treated with the
hormone and those that are not.
They finally found an ally in Dennis Wolff, Pennsylvanias
agriculture secretary.
Late last month, Mr. Wolff announced a crackdown on
absence labeling on milk, meaning labels that tell
consumers what isnt in a product rather than what is. He argues that hormone free labels are misleading because
cows produce hormones naturally. Even labels that are more
carefully worded, such as contains no artificial hormones
will soon be verboten in Pennsylvania because Mr. Wolff said
that there were no scientific tests to prove the truth of such a
claim.
His ban also extends to phrases like pesticide free and
antibiotic free, which he maintains are confusing for
consumers because they suggest that milk without those
labels contains pesticides or antibiotics. In fact, he said,
processed milk is tested repeatedly in Pennsylvania to make
sure that it doesnt contain those substances.
It confuses them, he said. It seems to imply there is a safe,
nonsafe dimension.
A former dairy farmer, Mr. Wolff said he decided to look into
the issue after he received calls from farmers complaining
that they were being forced to stop using bovine growth
hormone if they wanted to continue selling their milk to
certain dairies. He also said his office had received many
calls from confused consumers.
Mr. Wolffs office could not provide surveys or research
showing that consumers were confused by the issue, and was
unable to come up with even one name of a consumer who
had complained. The Ohio Department of Agriculture held a hearing on the
milk labeling issue last week, though no decision has been
made.
The proliferation of labels making health claims on food is
clearly a source of confusion to consumers. And governments
can play a useful role in making sure that the labels are
accurate. But Mr. Wolffs edict doesnt have anything to do
with helping consumers. Otherwise, he would have tried to
refine the labels or create a system for verifying dairy
farmers claims (a process for which the
Food and Drug
Administration
issued guidelines in 1994).
Rather, Mr. Wolff is bucking consumer demand, which will
benefit Monsanto and a bunch of whiny dairy farmers.
Monsanto certainly doesnt need his help. On Thursday, the
company told investors that its gross profits should double in
the next five years. And I find it hard to muster sympathy for
farmers who refuse to change to meet consumer demands.
Most businesses certainly dont have that luxury.
Its harder still to find much merit in Mr. Wolffs arguments
for the labeling ban.
He defends the labeling decision by arguing that the non-
rBGH labels cant be verified by scientific testing because
there is no difference between milk from cows that has been
treated with bovine growth hormone and those that have not. But the same argument could be made about organic
milk.
He also argues that absence labels such as no artificial
hormones suggest that products without those labels are
inferior. So what? As long as the claim is accurate, isnt the
point of labels to differentiate one product from another?
Using Mr. Wolffs reasoning, you could argue that organic
labels on milk are unfair because they suggest that non-
organic food
is inferior. The same goes for labels for
natural, from grass-fed cows and locally produced.
But here Mr. Wolff contradicts his own argument. There are
exceptions to his rule, for what he describes as puff claims
like farm fresh and locally produced.
Isnt he saying that milk produced in New Jersey is inferior?
And how do you scientifically prove its from Pennsylvania
anyway?
TODD RUTTER, president of Rutters Dairy in York, Pa.,
said he was particularly incensed that he learned about the
new standards the day after the decision was made, when he
was called by reporters. Mr. Rutters dairy began labeling its
milk as having no artificial growth hormones on Oct. 1,
using labeling guidelines from the F.D.A. He said his label
was reviewed and approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture last summer.
Im not arguing that it may be bad for you, may not be bad
for you, he said. We just feel that consumers, when given
the choice, for the same price point, will always choose a
product that they believe is the most naturally produced
available.
Leslie Zuck, executive director of Pennsylvania Certified
Organic, said she, too, was disappointed with the ruling. But
she offers a sensible compromise. Instead of banning the
labels, why couldnt dairy farmers who use the artificial
growth hormone use their own labels?
Ms. Zuck suggests this: We use rBGH and its great stuff!
Any buyers?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/business/11feed.html?_r=2&ore
f=slogin&oref=slogin