Fwd: Got Hormones? article in Time magazine

[Guest guest]

" News Update from The Campaign "

" Got Hormones? " article in Time magazine

Thu, 18 Dec 2003 07:21:29 -0600

 

News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

----

 

Dear News Update Subscribers,

 

The current issue of Time magazine has an article titled " Got Hormones? "

that discusses the lawsuit Monsanto has filed against Oakhurst Dairy in

Maine.

 

As you may be aware, many dairy cows in the United States are injected

with a genetically engineered growth hormone called recombinant bovine

somatotropin. It is also referred to as recombinant bovine growth

hormone or rBGH. Oakhurst Dairy only buys milk that comes from cows not

injected with these growth hormones and advertises that fact.

 

Monsanto does not like such labels and advertising because they feel

consumers will get the impression that dairy products from cows not

injected with rBGH are safer and healthier.

 

Indeed, many experts feel that rBGH was not adequately tested by the FDA

before approval and could be linked to increased rates of breast and

prostrate cancer. One major concern is the link between these diseases

and the increased presence of Insulin-Like Growth Factor or IGF-1 in

milk from cows injected with rBGH.

 

A few companies like Ben & Jerry's ice cream advertise that they oppose

and do not use rBGH. But they put a disclaimer on their packaging that

says: " The FDA has said no significant difference has been shown and no

test can now distinguish between milk from rBGH treated and untreated

cows. "

 

Oakhurst Dairy refuses to include such a disclaimer stating " We are in

the business of marketing milk, not Monsanto's drugs. "

 

The article below from Time will explain more about the lawsuit.

 

For further information on the controversies regarding rBGH, you may

want to read the 29-page chapter titled " Spilled Milk " in author Jeffrey

M. Smith's exceptional book, Seeds of Deception. It does an excellent

job in pointing out the many concerns over rBGH.

 

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods encourages everyone

on this News Update e-mail list to get a copy of the book Seeds of

Deception. As an added incentive for you to purchase a copy of Seeds of

Deception, we are offering $5.00 off and FREE shipping through the end

of the year. You can order your copy now for only $12.95 on our web

site at:

http://www.thecampaign.org/seeds.php

 

Craig Winters

Executive Director

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

 

The Campaign

PO Box 55699

Seattle, WA 98155

Tel: 425-771-4049

Fax: 603-825-5841

E-mail: label

Web Site: http://www.thecampaign.org

 

Mission Statement: " To create a national grassroots consumer campaign

for the purpose of lobbying Congress and the President to pass

legislation that will require the labeling of genetically engineered

foods in the United States. "

 

***************************************************************

 

Got Hormones?

 

The simmering issue of milk labels boils over when an agrochemical giant

sues small farmers in Maine

 

By Margot Roosevelt Leeds

 

Time Magazine

Monday, Dec. 22, 2003

 

Down a dirt road, tucked in rolling fields, John Nutting's farm is a

picture of tranquillity. A wintry breeze sighs through the forest.

Black-and-white Holsteins chew their cuds in a lazy rhythm. Only the

large sign hammered onto a red barn attests to the defiant mood in Maine

dairy country: OUR PLEDGE - NO ARTIFICIAL HORMONES.

 

Hormones are a hot issue in these parts. As do at least 85% of Maine's

milk producers, Nutting signs an affidavit each year vowing not to

inject his cows with recombinant bovine somatotropin (RBST), a

genetically engineered growth hormone. " We're proud of the way we farm, "

says the third-generation dairyman. " Consumers have the right to know

how their milk is made. "

 

Not necessarily. A food fight has erupted in New England between those

who would label their produce as they see fit and those who argue that

some of those labels give customers a false impression. Chief among the

latter is Monsanto Corp., the agrochemical giant that markets RBST and

is fighting a rearguard action to quell consumer resistance to its

product.

 

The St. Louis, Mo., multinational demanded last year that Maine suspend

its official Quality seal, which is granted only to milk from uninjected

cows. When the state refused, Monsanto took another tack, suing one of

Maine's leading dairies in federal court in Boston. The suit charged

that Oakhurst Dairy, the company that buys Nutting's milk, is misleading

consumers by advertising a no-artificial-hormone pledge, implying that

its milk is safer and healthier. " Milk is milk, " says Janice Armstrong,

Monsanto's director of public affairs.

 

That sets the stage for the latest chapter in a battle that has raged

for more than a decade. Critics claim - although studies are

inconclusive - that using synthetic bovine growth hormone could lead to

such health problems as premature puberty or even cancer. But the Food

and Drug Administration (FDA) studied the issue before it approved RBST

in 1993, when it reported that tests showed no significant difference

between the milk from treated and untreated cows.

 

Several groups, including Consumers Union and the Center for Food

Safety, say the tests did in fact reveal worrisome differences and that

the FDA incorrectly interpreted the data. Activists campaigning against

genetically modified (GM) food want the U.S. to ban RBST outright, as

Europe and Canada have. As for Maine, " we would rather be safe than

sorry, " says assistant attorney general Francis Ackerman, who is

preparing the state's brief to intervene on Oakhurst's behalf.

 

Today one-third of U.S. dairy herds are injected with RBST, which

stimulates cows to produce as much as 15% more milk. Lawsuits over

labeling have forced the repeal of a Vermont hormone-disclosure law and

stopped dairies in Illinois and Texas from touting their milk as

RBST-free. Earlier this year the FDA took up the fight, warning

producers in Florida, New York, New Jersey and Minnesota against using

labels that say " no hormones " or " hormone-free. " The agency has said

nothing, however, about labels like Oakhurst's that refer only to

farmers avoiding " artificial " or " synthetic " hormones. Monsanto would

like Oakhurst to emulate Ben & Jerry's and Stonyfield Farm, whose

no-synthetic-hormone labels also carry language noting the FDA's

approval of RBST. But Stanley Bennett, whose family built Oakhurst from

a two-horse outfit in 1921 into an $85 million modern processor, says he

won't be " bullied " by the $4.7 billion biotech behemoth. " We are in the

business of marketing milk, " he says, " not Monsanto's drugs. "

 

Is the battle over the milk of Maine about free speech? Or is it about

dairies using scare tactics to sell more product? " Oakhurst's marketing

campaign is based more on fear than on facts, " says Monsanto's

Armstrong. Consumer groups say if farmers can't label their milk as

coming from cows free of artificial hormones, it could set a precedent

for challenging such popular labels as " MSG-free, " " no artificial

flavors, " " free-range " and " GM-free. " Maine attorney general Steven Rowe

plans to ask Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts to help him fight

Monsanto when the suit goes to trial in January. " We in New England are

into purity, " he says. " The FDA may not have a problem with artificial

growth hormones, but many consumers do. " That's what farmers like John

Nutting are counting on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Photos - easier uploading and sharing