Not long ago, I got an invitation to speak at the annual 2009 Dairy Forum sponsored by the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA).  It was tempting to say “yes”… the meeting is being held at a dandy upscale hotel on the Disney World property in Florida, and in January, 2009!  I, however, had a schedule conflict and couldn’t accept the invitation.

Good thing, however, given the title of the session I was invited to speak at was entitled “Labeling – War of Words”.

As I looked through the invitation and discussion of the session’s objectives, a paragraph “jumped out” at me.

“The labeling of milk and dairy products has become increasingly controversial, confusing and contentious. This panel discussion will focus on the latest legal battles over artificial growth hormone labeling, as well as other recent state and federal attempts to define what information must be included on our product labels.  If labeling is a hot topic in your market, come learn the latest on these issues.”

War of Words?

Confusing!  Contentious!

Come on!

In large part, processor members of IDFA are responsible for this mess!

NOW, they are going to sponsor a meeting to “talk about it”?  Very puzzling, especially when one of the invitees to speak at the session is from a company that is very anti-science.

The stunning aspect to me about this program idea is that the processor members of IDFA were the one’s who created the deceptive and misleading marketing campaigns that attacked rbST!  I originally wrote about this in a blog called “rbST-Certified Free Milk – A Story of Smoke and Mirrors” in 2006.

The theme of that blog in a nutshell was: some dairy processors are perfectly willing to exploit consumer ignorance and suspicion that some milk might be safer (rbST-free) or healthier than other milk. And, charge a whole lot more for the “safer” milk!

I have written extensively about the fact that all milk is the same from the standpoint of nutrient and hormone content (see:  No Difference in Conventional, rbST-Free and Organic Milk).

The science evidence is clear, not confusing, that all milk is the same.  The only confusion is that created by the Luddites and the milk marketers.

Can you imagine?

Me talking about science and the need for technological innovation in animal agriculture in front some of the dairy processors that concocted this misleading marketing campaign that attacks safe science and scientists?

And, likely with a few luddites in the audience to boot!

And, the phrase “artificial growth hormone” in the promotion of the program.

I wrote a blog last spring “Irony and International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA)” and took the organization to task for double speak for issuing two contrasting press releases.

Someone must be teaching an advanced course in irony and deception at IDFA…wonder what the prerequisites are for the course?  It also would be nice to know who was teaching this “stuff”.

The Washington Times
Published on Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Milk occupies a special place in our lives and language. It has been dubbed “Nature’s most perfect food,” and we speak sentimentally of the “land of milk and honey” and the “milk of human kindness.” Dairy products represent important nutrient sources in much of the world, containing calcium and high-quality protein.

Fourteen years ago, after a lengthy review, the Food and Drug Administration approved a protein called recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST), or bovine growth hormone, that stimulates milk production in dairy cows. (”Recombinant” indicates that the protein is made with gene-splicing techniques.) A cow’s pituitary gland normally produces bST, one of a group of natural protein hormones that control milk production. (The gene-spliced and natural versions are functionally indistinguishable.)

Thus, low levels of bST are found in milk from all cows, both supplemented and unsupplemented. Comprehensive and sophisticated studies by academics and government regulatory agencies around the world have found no differences in the composition of the milk or meat from bST-supplemented cows.

Farmers loved rbST because it offered them greater yields per cow, more efficient use of feed, and higher profits, but things quickly soured. Activists were adamantly opposed to rbST, however, and they have continued to raise a variety of spurious, specious objections ever since. A recently published article by Cornell University Professor Dale Bauman and his colleagues in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluded the protein is a “valuable tool for use in dairy production to improve productive efficiency” (defined as milk output per feed resource input), and at the same time has “less negative effects of the environment than conventional dairying.”

This elegant study should put any remaining concerns to rest, but it won’t. The food kooks and enviro-fanatics won’t let facts get in the way of their prejudices.

When rbST is injected into cows, their digestive systems become more efficient at converting feed to milk. It induces the average cow, which produces about 8 gallons of milk each day, to make nearly a gallon more. More feed, water, barn space and grazing land are devoted to milk production, rather than other aspects of bovine metabolism, so that you get seven cows’ worth of milk from six.

This may not seem like a big deal, but when applied widely the effects are profound. For every million cows treated with rbST each year, 6.6 billion gallons of water (enough to supply 26,000 homes) are conserved. With much of the nation enduring a drought and many cities in the West experiencing water shortages, this is a significant benefit.

The amount of animal feed consumed each year by those million rbST-supplemented cows is reduced by more than 3 billion pounds. This helps to keep the lid on corn prices, even as much of the nation’s corn harvest is diverted to producing ethanol for cars. And the land required to raise the cattle and grow their food is reduced by more than 417 square miles.

At the same time, more than 5.5 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel (enough to power 8,800 homes) are saved, greenhouse gas emissions are lowered by 30,000 metric tons (because fewer cows means less methane produced by bovine intestinal tracts), and manure production is cut by about 3.6 million tons, reducing the runoff into waterways and groundwater.

Comprehensive studies by academics and government regulatory agencies around the world have found no differences in the composition of milk or meat between rbST-supplemented and nonsupplemented cows.

Consumers are apparently happy to drink milk from supplemented cows, despite efforts by biotechnology opponents to bamboozle milk processors and retailers into believing that consumers don’t want it. In various surveys to ascertain the factors that influence consumers’ milk purchasing decisions, the predominant considerations have been: price (80 percent to 99 percent), freshness (60 percent to 97 percent), brand loyalty (30 percent to 60 percent) and a claim of “organic” (1 percent to 4 percent). Only the “organic” claim is even remotely related to rbST supplementation. Unless prompted, the consumers surveyed didn’t mention rbST as a concern.

Some milk suppliers and food stores have increased the price of milk labeled “rbST-free,” even though it is indistinguishable from supplemented milk, and offer only this more expensive option, pre-empting consumers’ ability to choose on the basis of price.

Activists’ purely speculative concerns about rbST – ranging from the destruction of small family farms to the risk of cancer – have proven baseless. Before approval by the FDA, rbST underwent the longest and most comprehensive regulatory review of any veterinary product in history. Three years before the FDA approved the marketing of milk from supplemented cows, its scientists, in an article published in the journal Science, summarized more than 120 studies showing rbST poses no known risk to human health.

Their conclusion was affirmed over the next several years by additional scientific reviews conducted by the National Institutes of Health, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the drug-regulatory agencies of Britain, Canada and the European Union, and by an issues audit done by the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general. These reviews noted that small amounts of bST are found in milk from all cows, supplemented or not. They also noted that, like other proteins, rbST is digested in the human gut. Moreover, even if it is injected into the human bloodstream, it has no biological activity.

Disingenuous activists have unfairly stigmatized a scientifically proven product that has consistently delivered economic and environmental benefits to dairy farmers and consumers; and opportunistic retailers are ripping off their customers. In a more rational world, activists would embrace – and enlightened consumers would demand – milk with a label that boasted, “A Proud Product of rbST-Supplemented Cows.”

Henry I. Miller, a physician and fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, headed the Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Biotechnology from 1989 to 1993. He is the author, most recently, of “The Frankenfood Myth.”

Terry D. Etherton

A new scientific study by Vicini et al. published in the July issue of the prestigious Journal of the American Dietetic Association (JADA) reports the results of the first in-depth survey study comparing retail milk for quality, nutritional value and levels of different milk hormones, including bovine somatotropin (bST). The study that we published found that there were “no meaningful differences” in the composition of milk with the three different label claims.

Prompted by the recent trend in misleading food labeling based on dairy cow management, the study looked specifically at three label claims: conventional milk, recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST)-free milk and organic milk.

While minor differences were observed in milk composition for the three labels, the differences were not “biologically meaningful.” The coauthors of the study concluded that label claims “were not related to any meaningful differences in the milk compositional variables measured.” The only difference among conventional, rbST-free and organic milk is price, according to the study, with milk labeled rbST-free or organic selling for anywhere from $1 to $4 more per gallon than conventional milk.

Because absence-claim labels can imply that the milk labeled rbST-free or organic is safer or better than conventional milk, the published report emphasizes the importance of consumers being mindful about how product labels impact the food they purchase, that purchase decisions should be based on science and not on perceptions created by retail marketing, which can be misleading.

This peer-reviewed paper is important because it will help health care professionals respond effectively to consumer questions and perceptions about different milk-label claims.

Specifically, the study revealed the following:

• Quality: Antibiotics were not detectable in any milk samples. This is a not surprising result since milk containing antibiotics is not permitted to enter the food system. Bacterial counts were less for conventionally labeled milk compared with organic or rbST-free milk, but the differences were small and not significant.
• Nutrient Composition: Protein concentration was greater in organic milk compared to either conventional or rbST-free milk, which both had similar protein content. Again, the difference is not significant, and protein in milk accounts for little of the recommended protein intake for humans. There were no differences in milk fat, lactose or solids among the three label types.
• Hormone Levels: There were no differences in concentration of bST in milk regardless of label type. Concentrations of IGF-1(insulin-like growth factor-1) in milk were similar in conventional and rbST-free-milk, both were slightly higher in comparison to organic milk. Concentration of the steroid hormone progesterone was greater in organic milk compared to conventionally labeled milk or milk labeled rbST-free. Conventionally labeled milk had less estradiol compared to organic and rbST-free milk with concentrations of estradiol in samples labeled organic and rbST-free being the same.

Milk samples for the study were obtained from all 48 contiguous states, though some states did not have rbST-free milk, and some did not have organic milk samples pasteurized by the more conventional, lower-temperature methods. Samples were obtained during a three-week period, and states with larger populations and greater milk production were oversampled.

Reference for the study:

Vicini J, T Etherton, P Kris-Etherton, J Ballam, S Denham, R Staub, D Goldstein, R Cady, M McGrath, & M Lucy. Survey of retail milk composition as affected by label claims regarding farm-management practices. J Am Diet Assoc. 2008;108:1198-1203.

For those who thought the public discussion about recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) might have faded…guess what? It has not!

A superb paper (“The Environmental Impact of Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rbST) use in Dairy Production”) published by Capper et al. on June 30 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports that use of rbST reduces the carbon footprint of milk production. This is an important contribution to the scientific base documenting the benefits of rbST use in the dairy industry.

The study’s authors include Cornell University professor Dale Bauman, post-doctoral research associates Jude Capper and Euridice Castandena-Gutierrez, and Monsanto scientist Roger Cady.

Producing milk uses large quantities of land, energy and feed. The paper published by Bauman et al. reported that rbST use reduces the carbon hoofprint by easing energy, land and nutritional inputs necessary to sustain milk production at levels sufficient to meet demand.

This research found that, compared to a non-supplemented population, supplementing one million cows would rbST would result in the same amount of milk produced using 157,000 fewer cows. This has an obvious huge benefit on the environment!

Nutrient savings would be 491,000 metric tons of corn, 158,000 metric tons of soybeans, and total feedstuffs would be reduced by 2,300,000 metric tons … importantly, producers could reduce cropland use by 219,000 hectares and reduce 2.3 million tons of soil erosion annually.

Other Important Facts about rbST Use

In 2007, there were 9.2 million cows in the United States. For every one million cows supplemented with rbST, the global village would see an environmental saving of 824 million kilograms of carbon dioxide, 41 million kilograms of methane and 96,000 kilograms of nitrous oxide … amazing!

For every one million cows supplemented with rbST, the reduction in the carbon footprint is equivalent to removing approximately 400,000 family cars from the road or planting 300 million trees.

“Supplementing cows with rbST on an industry-wide scale would improve sustainability and reduce the dairy industry’s contribution to water acidification, algal growth, and global warming,” says Judith L. Capper, the lead author on the paper.

“Sustainability is important in agricultural production, with an emphasis placed upon meeting human food requirements while mitigating environmental impact,” said Bauman. “This study demonstrates that use of rbST markedly improves the efficiency of milk production, mitigates environmental impact including greenhouse gas emissions and reduces natural resource requirements such as fossil fuel, water and land use.”

Other Perspectives

I have written extensively about the benefits of biotechnology, and the importance of adopting products of biotechnology that enhance productive efficiency of animal agriculture, and that have positive environmental benefits. The paper by Capper et al. adds an important new element to the impressive database that demonstrates the many benefits of rbST for consumers, dairy farmers and the environment!

On June 22, 2008, the Star Tribune newspaper (Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota) published an article, “Is Labeling Milk as Free of Hormones a Bad Idea“, written by Lou Gelfand. The story is great example of the lousy and slanted journalism being practiced that focuses on agricultural biotechnology … in this case, rbST and milk labeling.

I have written about bad science journalism before. It continues to mystify me why some journalists fail to practice accurate and informative journalism. Must be easier to present a bias, distort the truth and mislead readers.

Enjoy the response that Ms. Bunting sent to the Star Tribune.

# # # #

As a 28-year veteran journalist, I find several inaccuracies in your article about milk labeling.

First, record high milk prices do not mean good income for dairy farmers. They are facing record high prices for all inputs — particularly feed, fuel, and fertilizer — surging farther and faster than milk prices (up 35-75% over year ago). The U.S. Department of Agriculture figures that dairy farms are profitable when the milk-feed ratio is 3.0 or above. Currently, it is 1.7!

Second, the dairy price support program does not “buoy” milk prices. This very low “floor” on the price of milk has not been triggered in years and it has not been adjusted for inflation. It is a non-factor.

Third, I am from Pennsylvania and our Sec of Agriculture did not “retreat.” A compromise was reached. Bottlers are prohibited from making “absence claims.” They are allowed to make production-related claims only, such as “produced from cows not treated with rbST.” They may not say “hormone free.” In addition, the FDA disclaimer stating no distinguishable difference in the milk must also appear on the label in a font size at least half the size of the claim.

Fourth, the countries mentioned do not ban products from cows treated with rbST (Posilac), they ban their farmers from using it because they market milk in a supply management or quota system. In Canada, for example, dairy farmers buy the right to sell a certain “quota” of milk. This keeps the supply tight and the price high to farmers. A production efficiency tool like rbST is certainly not going to be allowed by a nation that uses supply management.

Fifth, technologies that safely boost production efficiency are conserving our natural resources by producing more with less. In case you have not noticed, the U.S. and World population is expanding and our land base for producing food is shrinking. What could be more “green” than producing more milk with fewer cows, requiring less feed, less land to grow the feed, less manure waste nutrient to manage, etc. You get my drift.

Sixth, the only “sweet bonus” here is the one the retailers are collecting from consumers for “hormone-free” milk when actually all milk contains protein hormones as does nearly every food on the planet — plant or animal. There is no distinguishable difference between naturally occurring bovine somatotropin in the cow and the synthetic hormone used to supplement the cow. These cows actually benefit with greater longevity as they are producing milk at a profitable level for a longer period of time, so a farmer can afford to keep feeding and caring for a cow that does not breed back when she should for her next lactation. In those cases, if the milk production falls to a certain level and she is not with calf for another lactation, she would be sold for beef.

You see, rbST is not the “evil demon” activists and lately, journalists, seem to want to make it out to be. But of course, there are simply not enough journalists today with a solid background in science to discern the truth, and even fewer who truly understand agriculture and razor thin margins farmers operate on.

A release I came across in my computer inbox the other day promoted the establishment of a new brand of milk. Not only does this milk come from happy cows, but from socially responsible dairy farms.

It appears that “socially responsible” has replaced “politically correct” as the buzz phrase of choice in many circles.

I am all for producers finding niche markets. Many farmers growing corn and soybeans in the Illinois River bottoms are cashing in on premiums for non-GMO crops grown for export. Proximity to river terminal markets allows easier access to the transportation vehicle that will take the product to those who are willing to pay a premium for it.

These farmers are producing a product for a narrowly defined group of potential customers. They are not avoiding biotechnology because they have to, but because they have found a market that is not supplied by mainstream providers.

Just the word biotechnology associated with food scares the pants off of some people. Terry Etherton, who heads up the Department of Dairy and Animal Science at Penn State University, told me it’s not really about the science, but about an individual’s perception of the value of a product.

“Biotechnology is simply the use of biology to produce some product, good or service to benefit society,” Terry explained. “Bread and wine making are uses of biotechnology.”

People rave about the science used for biomedical purposes. Terry Etherton is right. It’s not really about the science. It’s about perception of value. That perception could be swayed by a seed of misinformation planted by an anti-agriculture group. Another scenario Terry described: “A lot of us have had a jolting experience in a science course somewhere along the line so it’s not their favorite topic.”

And finally, Terry told me, “The scientific community – researchers specifically – are more concerned about publishing their papers in the Scientific Journal than they are in explaining what they are doing, how it is important to society and how it might benefit society.”

He says this speaks to the issue of better developing and delivering science education programs to the public, which has not been done in an effective manner. When people have imbedded value systems and beliefs, it is very challenging to modify their behavior.

“A large scale population education program for anything is really, really expensive,” he explained.

I understand value systems. I understand beliefs. What I don’t get is how, with a clear conscience, some in the dairy processing industry can so quickly use misperceptions about biotechnology against the dairy farmers who have partnered with them for years.

As Terry Etherton explained to me, some in the dairy processing industry are using words like “artificial hormones” to scare consumers into believing that milk produced without the use of supplemental bovine somatotropin (rBST) is better than milk produced with it.

“The TRUTH is, all milk is the same within a fat class. All milk contains lots of hormones. There is no difference between organic and conventional milk.”

Terry calls it a deceptive marketing campaign that has resulted in a lot of money being made at retail that is not being shared with the producers.

“The processors want rBST-free milk. Most recent price data from the American Farm Bureau Federation found that the retail mark -up differential is $22.50 per hundredweight when you compare conventional versus rBST free milk,” he said. “There are producers being forced into situations where they cannot use supplemental BST because co-ops have been pushed by processors upstream.”

Terry said well-conducted surveys show that consumers want to buy cheap milk. This is not about what the consumers want. I know producers who are being forced to sign affidavits saying they will not use the technology or their milk will not be picked up. In many situations, producers only have one option to sell their milk.

As a man of science, Terry Etherton is perplexed by this campaign against rBST.

“Bovine somatotropin has no biological effect in humans. It is not recognized by human cells.” Beyond that, says Etherton, “You’re talking about a molecule that is present in all milk whether it is conventional or organic or BST free at the same level and treatment doesn’t change it. Since it is a protein, it is digested like all other proteins. It doesn’t matter if it is green bean protein or milk protein. Most of the milk sold in this country is pasteurized, and the heat in that process renders BST inactive anyway!”

I have heard so many rumors about rBST that it makes my head swim. There is no merit to the myth that it causes cancer and it is not banned in any of these United States. It does not cause cows to “burn out.”

If farmers want to produce a product for a niche market, more power to ‘em. Give them a piece of the premium. The current system of forcing producers to give up a risk management tool that has been safe and effective since its introduction in the U.S. 14 years ago just doesn’t seem fair to me.

Posted with permission.

The International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) recently has issued two contradictory press releases (see below) that relate to labeling of milk and dairy products. In one, they promote absence claim labeling; in the other they propose labels are not needed.

IDFA supports the use of deceptive absence labels in the rbST-free milk market battle! However, they are opposed to labels on ultra-filtered (UF) milk used in cheesemaking because those labels may confuse the consumer!

The only common factor in this puzzling marketing scheme is that conventional and rbST-free milk are indistinguishable (aside from the higher price charged for rbST-free milk) as are the UF and regular milk used to make cheese.

Mystifying….isn’t it? No wonder some consumers are confused!

A question to ponder: Why don’t IDFA members support the use of absence claims to differentiate cheese made from normal and UF milk when they are perfectly happy to do this with rbST-free milk?

This has been a key strategy in the game plan that uses deceptive absence claims to label milk as rbST-free: Mislead the public about it, then sell it for a whole lot more than conventional milk….and cheat dairy farmers out of a technology that allows them to make a reasonable profit!

Irony is too “generous” a word to use to describe the above “smoke and mirrors” marketing campaigns, and the rationale for them. Maybe IDFA actually stands for International Dysfunctional Foods Association?

IDFA, NMPF Call for UF Milk in Cheese without Special Labeling

In joint comments filed last Friday, IDFA and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) reiterated their request for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to allow ultrafiltered (UF) milk to be used in cheesemaking without requiring special labeling. The two groups originally filed comments when the agency’s proposed rule regarding UF milk was released in 2005, but FDA reopened the comment period last December, seeking additional information on label practicality and consumer perception.

IDFA and NMPF argue in the comments that UF milk, which is milk with the whey stream removed, should remain under the group designation “milk” in the product label ingredient list. Because the whey stream is always removed in traditional cheesemaking, the milk used in the process is exactly the same product as UF milk, and cheese made with UF milk is indistinguishable from cheese made from milk.

“If UF milk were not allowed to be labeled as milk in the ingredient list of cheese, the industry may face millions of dollars of costs to design, store and appropriately use new labels and to store additional versions of cheese,” the comments state. “Also, the use of UF milk could be curtailed as companies identify insurmountable logistical problems and decide to restrict use of the ingredient.”

The comments also address the issue of consumer perception, saying buyers would be misled if processors were required to label UF milk as a separate ingredient. To support this position, IDFA commissioned consumer research in December 2005 that clearly found such labeling would be confusing to consumers. The study showed consumers mistakenly attributed important differences in taste, healthfulness and quality when comparing cheese product labels with and without FDA’s proposed requirements.

“IDFA and NMPF urge FDA to re-evaluate its tentative position on ingredient labeling in the 2005 proposed rule and either determine that ingredient labeling is not called for, or that standardized cheese with UF milk should be exempted from the ingredient labeling requirement. This outcome would promote the adoption of this technology throughout the different types of standard cheeses while providing consumers with a consistent product at an affordable price,” the comments conclude.

Posted April 14, 2008

# # #

Consumer Concerns Largely Ignored in Ohio’s Revised Rule on Dairy Labels
Opposition Grows Among Dairy Processors, Ohio Businesses and Consumer Groups

(Washington, D.C. — April 8, 2008) Ohio’s Department of Agriculture continues to champion state-imposed rules that will severely restrict consumer information on dairy labels despite growing opposition from dairy processors, Ohio grocery chains, and consumer and environmental organizations, as well as Ohio consumers, according to testimony submitted today by the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA). IDFA represents hundreds of dairy processors across the nation, and 22 dairy processing companies with facilities in the state of Ohio, including Kroger, Reiter Dairy and Smith Dairy.

According to IDFA’s testimony, Ohio’s Refiled Rule 901:11-8-01 continues to be unwanted by consumers, unnecessarily burdensome for processors and unlikely to restore a market for dairy farmers who use synthetic hormones.

“Despite the department’s efforts to convince consumers that there is a problem, there has been little if any public outcry for the state to mandate the appearance and content of current labels,” IDFA said in its testimony.” To the contrary, we believe that the department and the state of Ohio have heard from hundreds of consumers who have voiced opposition to the department’s efforts to restrict dairy labels and very few proponents, by comparison.”

Ohio’s business community, which was strongly opposed to the rule when it was introduced on an emergency basis earlier this year, remains strongly opposed to the new proposal, believing that it infringes on its right to commercial free speech and impedes interstate commerce. IDFA is joined by the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the Organic Trade Association and the Midwest Dairy Foods Association in its opposition to the new labeling restrictions.

In today’s testimony, IDFA argues that the refiled rule violates the right of dairy processors to exercise commercial free speech. “It is settled legal doctrine that a government restriction on commercial free speech must be ‘narrowly tailored’ and no more restrictive than necessary to achieve its purpose,” states IDFA’s testimony.” This doctrine has been established in the U.S. Supreme Court and applied repeatedly in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which includes Ohio. As described above, the details of the refiled rule remain too restrictive and go well beyond what was contemplated by the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) guidance document.”

The testimony continues to state that the refiled rule is an impediment to interstate commerce. “Under the Commerce Clause a state may not impose an unreasonable impediment to interstate commerce. Indeed, a state regulation like the Ohio refiled rule, which would prohibit label claims from being made in Ohio that are readily accepted by most other states, would be particularly vulnerable to legal challenge, especially given the multi-state and even national distribution of many dairy products. This standard has also been articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court and applied in the Sixth Circuit as well as other jurisdictions.”

Saying that the refiled rule “is unnecessary and its fiscal analysis is incomplete,” IDFA urges the department not to adopt Refiled Rule 901:11-8-01 and to continue to allow dairy product labels using the guidelines provided by FDA.

Dairymen respond to Wal-Mart’s “Great Value”

Wal-Mart announced this week that its Great Value milk brand now sources milk exclusively from cows not treated with rbST. Milk selections at Sam’s Club are also offered from suppliers sourcing milk from non-supplemented cows.

With this announcement came a report on Wal-Mart’s blogging website, where Rand Waddoups, “author for sustainability” writes about several new “sustainability-related” initiatives at Wal-Mart, including this recent change for Great Value milk.

Rand is a senior director at Wal-Mart, and his biography states that he is “looking after the most exciting thing happening in business today, sustainability.” He is part of a small team, which he writes, is dedicated to building sustainability into every part of Wal-Mart’s business strategy via three future goals: 1) to have zero waste, 2) to use 100% renewable energy, and 3) to bring more sustainable products to customers.

On Wednesday, March 19, Rand posted his article “Great news about Wal-Mart milk,” in which he described the switch to exclusive sourcing of milk from cows not treated with rbST. At the end of every report on the sustainability section of Wal-Mart’s blogging website, people can submit comments, and these comments are logged for all to read. That’s what a blog is (short for web log).

Rand’s report about Great Value milk unleashed a landslide of “blogging” responses. As Farmshine was getting ready for press Wednesday night, the total number of comments had reached a whopping 121 (compared to 3, 10, 56, at most, on all other subjects at the blog) over the course of 8 days. Most of the comments were submitted just on Monday and Tuesday of this week. Out of the 121 comments, only 12 thanked Wal-Mart for their decision to change the milk sourcing.

Four comments were actually questions from consumers asking: Will the milk cost more? How will it be enforced? Are rbST and rbGH the same thing? Will there be a sticker on the milk to let us know we are buying non rbST milk?

The remaining 105 comments (including two duplicates) were articulate, thoughtful responses asking Wal-Mart to look at the big picture, learn the facts about the issue, understand the meaning of sustainability from a planet resources point of view, and they repeatedly asked the retail giant to reconsider their Great Value milk sourcing decision.

These comments were mainly from dairy farmers, wives of dairy farmers, and daughters of dairy farmers. About 20% of these dairy-related comments were from veterinarians, nutritionists, dairy consultants, and university dairy and animal science professors, including Dr. Mike Hutjens at the University of Illinois and Dr. John Fetrow, Professor of Dairy Medicine at the University of Minnesota.

Incidentally, there were at least 10 consumer blogs, which were posted after reading the dairymen’s blogs. These consumers started questioning Wal-Mart’s affordable pricing policy. They also questioned the “sustainability” benefits of this decision in terms of efficiency, population growth, and land resources. One consumer voiced environmental concern about this decision, thinking it might contribute to pulling marginal land out of conservation reserve and into production because reduced efficiency in milk production would be occurring at a time when the biofuels craze is also competing for feed grains.

As a writer, what I found so enlightening in reading through the blog, is that hard working dairy farmers took the time to type their thoughts and let their voices be heard. They didn’t worry about being the best writer or how perfect their spelling would be. They simply overcame any trepidation and spoke from the heart.

Some of the comments included scientific facts, figures, and statistics, but for the most part, the responses were simply sincere voices of reason within a complex issue that has taken on a life of its own. From as few as two-lines of comment to long entries of 10-or more paragraphs, each dairyman and industry partner, who commented on the blog, took advantage of a golden opportunity to be heard, to participate in free market democracy.

Congratulations for speaking your mind! Hats off for taking your message to Wal-Mart and consumers. The bottom line here is that dairy farmers spoke up. Consumers need to hear from farmers on these issues of technology. Otherwise, emotion will rule the day on the present issues and those yet to come.

To read the blog and even add to it, visit Wal-Mart’s special blogging website at www.checkoutblog.com. Then click on “sustainability.”

April Class I Recovers Nearly $2

The April Class I milk base price or “mover” will be $18.61 per hundredweight, representing an increase of $1.91 to recover about two-thirds of the March loss, according to the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) announcement last Friday, Mar. 21. The April 2008 price is $3.74 higher than the price of $14.87 for April 2007.

The advance, as expected, came on the heels of stronger butter sales and higher cheese prices, which more than made up for declines in the powdered milk sector (both nonfat dry milk and dry whey).

Advanced prices and pricing factors are based on component prices as reported by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) for only the first two weeks of the previous month (March): Butter $1.2438/lb; Nonfat Dry Milk $1.2537/lb; Cheese $2.0190/lb; and Dry Whey $0.2454/lb.

Market Factors Improve
The above prices used for calculating the April Class I advance price, actually improved a bit more after the two-week cutoff. For example, butter sales continued strong through the holiday last week and cash prices continue to increase, according to USDA AMS Market News.

The NASS Cold Storage Report, issued March 20, showed butter stocks at the end of February were up 8% over last year, after being 26% above year ago at the end of January.

In the cheese sector, prices had declined toward the end of the first two-weeks of the month, which are weeks used in the advanced Class I milk pricing calculation. Cheese prices then rebounded on the cash market at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange through the latter part of March, as export interest continues to factor into the balance of supply and demand. Cheese stocks in cold storage remain 8% below year ago, and reports indicate aging programs are starting to rebuild after being depleted.

In the powder markets during the latter part of March, prices have been firming, up. For example, export demand reportedly continues to help clear the heavy supplies of nonfat dry milk, and dry whey prices are trending a bit higher as supplies become more balanced with current demand.

Fluid production heavy in Southwest

The heavy fluid milk production in the Southwest is increasing due to the good weather conditions. According to USDA AMS Market News, this milk is moving even farther away to find processing capacity.

During February, 9.9 billion pounds of milk were received by the Federal Milk Market Order system, which is 6.3% higher than Feb. 2007, but this leap year had an extra day in the month, which affected the year-over-year comparison.

All market utilization was reported as 37% Class I, 11% Class II, 40% Class III and 12% Class IV. The statistical blend price for February was $18.84 – which was down $1.71 cents from January and $4.14 higher than a year ago.

February’s all-milk price was calculated at $19.30 – $1.20 lower than January and $4.40 higher than Feb. 2007.

The announced U.S. Class I cooperative price for March was reported by USDA AMS at $21.71 compared with $24.63 last month and $18.53 a year ago.

ODA Holds Line on Labeling

The Ohio Department of Agriculture, last week, held the line on the content of the state’s proposed milk labeling law. No changes were made to the original submission of standards, which will now go to the Joint Committee Agency on Rule Review. The Agency will consider the measure this Friday, March 31. The proposed Ohio labeling law is similar to Pennsylvania standards, but goes further in requiring rbST-related claims be followed by a proper disclaimer statement regarding no difference in the milk, and this disclaimer must be of equal size, font, color, and position as the claim.

###

Sixty-six university dairy and veterinary scientists launched a broad attack Monday against milk processors and retail marketers who increasingly seek to advertise and label milk produced by cows not treated with Monsanto’s recombinant bovine somatotropin. A letter from professors at nearly every major land grant university asserted there was no difference between conventional and “rBST-free” or organic milk but that consumers were being misled by emotional advertising claims to pay higher prices.

“Organic and ‘rBST-free’ milk are routinely advertised as being somehow healthier, less risky, more environmentally friendly, and produced by ‘happier’ cows than conventional milk,” the scientists’ letter said. “Consumers are led to believe that organic milk is better, or that ‘rbST-free’ milk is safer. The truth is quite different, but behind these claims are very powerful corporate interests that know that they can sell the same product at a higher price if they can create doubt or spread fear about conventional milk.”

The letter was coordinated by dairy medicine Prof. John Fetrow of the University of Minnesota and Dairy and Animal Science Department Head Terry D. Etherton of Penn State and signed by leading academics including Dale Bauman of Cornell University in New York, one of the pioneers in studying rBST. They cited a recent study in which more than 200 different samples of conventional, “rBST-free” and organic milk from retail stores across the U.S. were tested by audited procedures and found to have the same nutrient content and identical levels of the estrogen, IGF-1, bST. None contained antibiotics.

“It is easy to scare people by using the word ‘hormone,’ but all milk contains hormones and always has,” the letter said. “The levels of these hormones are the same in whatever milk you drink, and their presence poses no health risk to humans. Vitamin D is a steroid hormone and is added to milk. Milk also contains protein hormones, such as bovine somatotropin (also called bST or bovine growth hormone, BGH) and IGF-1. Both are present in tiny quantities in milk, are digested just like any other protein you eat (steak or tofu), and have no effect in people when eaten.”

The anti-rBST campaign was “particularly deceptive,” it said. “The vague and unsupportable assertions about ‘cancer’ or ‘antibiotic resistance’ (bST is not an antibiotic) are simply not scientifically credible. Oft-repeated smear campaigns can, however, gradually shape the public’s perceptions, and major food corporations understand the power of fear in selling food.”

The scientists asserted that “corporate interests can increase their profits if people fear conventional milk. They can make more money selling ‘rbST-free’ milk at $4/gallon or organic milk at $6/gallon (or more) than by selling conventional milk at $3/gallon, and the majority of that profit differential stays in the corporation’s hands.” The letter singled out Dean Foods, the largest fluid milk marketer, and Whole Foods Markets, the largest organic grocery chain, for financing the Organic Center, which “spreads fear and disinformation about conventional milk and other products of conventional agriculture” and touts products from Dean-owned Horizon Organic and Whole Foods.

The letter was released one week before an Ohio state review committee was to hold a hearing on a new regulation that would restrict “rBST-free” labeling and require a prominent label disclaimer that the milk is no different. It also would mandate record-keeping to verify the claim. The controversy has spread nationwide with Utah also contemplating label restrictions similar to Ohio’s and the legislatures of Missouri and Kansas considering bills to restrict “absence” claims. Pennsylvania proposed but withdrew a similar regulation. It also followed the announcement by Wal-Mart Stores, the leading U.S. food retailer, that it would sell own-label milk from rBST-free cows. Wal-Mart has not said whether it would put a claim on labels. A spokeswoman said only that the retailer was “considering our options on labels.”

Posted with permission.

For the first quarter of 2008, shoppers reported the average price for a half-gallon of regular whole milk was $2.40, up 2 cents from the prior quarter. The average price for one gallon of regular whole milk was $3.81, down 10 cents. Comparing per-quart prices, the retail price for whole milk sold in gallon containers was about 20 percent lower compared to half-gallon containers, a typical volume discount long employed by retailers.

Compared to the first quarter of 2007, retail prices for regular milk in gallon and half-gallon containers rose 10 percent and 8 percent respectively during the first quarter of 2008. The average retail price for rbST-free milk rose about 10 percent as well. The average retail price for organic milk in half-gallon containers went up and down slightly over the year, and was 2 cents higher in the first quarter of 2008 compared to a year ago.

The Smoke and Mirrors of Milk Marketing

Is this Ever Going to Stop?

Nothing has changed since 2006 with respect to the fact that dairy farmers’ freedom to operate, and use a safe and effective biotechnology (rbST) has been continually under attack. The smoke and mirrors marketing campaign continues to roll on and on and on!

I have been writing about how dairy farmers who use rbST are getting cheated for a long time.

In a nutshell, some dairy processors and retailers have been willing to use deceptive labeling campaigns to exploit consumer ignorance, and raise the suspicion that some milk (i.e., organic or rbST-free) might be safer or healthier than other milk (i.e, conventional), and charge a whole lot more!

Oh, almost forgot…consumers who purchase rbST-free milk or organic milk pay for more the SAME milk, too (see the Table below)!

This is nonsense! There is no scientific evidence that there is any difference among conventional, rbST-free or organic milk, other than the price!

What an outrage!

What a legacy the practitioners of this deception (i.e., some milk retailers, processors and cooperatives) have built!

How Much Money is Being Made?

The extent of the “stealing your milk money” campaign is illustrated in the Table below (data from the latest American Farm Bureau Federation Marketbasket Survey).

The average price for a half-gallon of rbST-free milk is $3.30, up 24 cents from the last quarter or nearly 40 percent higher than the reported retail price for a half-gallon of regular milk ($2.40)!

The markup between conventional and rbST-free milk is 90 cents per half-gallon based on the price data for the 1st quarter of 2008! On a hundredweight (cwt) basis (which is how milk is sold from the farm), this represents a markup of $20.88 per cwt for rbST-free milk at retail!

The unfortunate reality is that none of this profit is being shared with hard-working dairy farmers, and the use of a safe and effective biotechnology, rbST, has attacked by Luddites and, sadly, by more than a few in the dairy industry.

Retail Milk Prices