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.

“Great Web sites share everything they learn and hear
(that’s relevant of course) with their users.”
- Andrew B. King

What does it take to be successful on the Web? The answer to that is simple and yet not so simple: Provide relevant information. Make it easy to discover.

How do we make sure that we provide relevant information on the DAS Web Site? We let go of the content.

That is, we entrust its care to nearly 30 content managers - researchers, educators, extension professionals, students - our experts around the state and in neighboring states. Along with regularly contributing their knowledge and expertise to das.psu.edu, these individuals continually seek and apply feedback from you, our clientele.

And to guarantee that this content is accessible to every one of our users, regardless of individual needs or technologies, we continually test and readjust how the site delivers that information.

So, is it working? The message from you, our users, is yes.

A snapshot of user activity

From January 1 of this year to the present, the Dairy and Animal Science Web Site was visited 146,288 times - an average of about 841 site visits each day. Compare this with benchmarked sites containing similar content, which received an average of 17,056 visits during the same time period.

Visits to das.psu.edu averaged a handful of page views each and added up to a total of 488,322 page views. This is compared to an average of 55,172 page views in the same time period on similar sites.

Our visitors spent, on average, about 3 minutes reading the Web page(s) that that interested them - approximately the time it takes to give a Web page a fairly thorough perusal. Considering that the tendency of users on the Web is to skim rather than read, this is an impressive amount of time to linger over Web content.

But perhaps the most telling is this: A total of 15,520 users repeatedly visited the pages they consider the most valuable to them - an average of more than 200 times each.

International visitors

Our statistics show that a large number of our users are viewing das.psu.edu outside the United States - 185 different countries and territories, including Canada, The United Kingdom, India, Australia, Mexico, the Philippines, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Spain, Greece, Denmark, Costa Rica, South Africa, and so on…

Aside from the United States, countries with the most visitors are Canada, with 4,074 visits; the UK, with 3,420 visits; India, with 2,276 visits; and Australia, with 1,814 visits. In addition, we receive a significant number of visitors from Spanish-speaking regions of the globe, which has lead us to translate much of our key information into Spanish (the DAS Web site is one of a very few sites at Penn State to offer Spanish content).

How users get to the DAS site

So far this year, more than 1,300 Web pages in education and industry linking to our site have generated 30,631 visits. By far, however, most users arrive at das.psu.edu using search engines - about 60 percent. (Of those, most are Google searches, with Yahoo coming in a distant second.)

Search engine statistics can be a gold mine of information. By studying the most commonly used words or phrases entered into Web searches, we can better understand what our users are looking for - and if possible bring them to us sooner and make information even easier to find.

Top content

Dairy
Year in and year out, the most popular content on the DAS Web site revolves around the main Dairy Science pages, Dairy Nutrition - including information specific to Calves and Heifers, dairy reproduction, Dairy 4-H, Dairy Digest, the Capital Region Dairy Team, and Penn State Dairy Alliance. Visits to all dairy-related pages total 99,788 since January 1.

Equine
Equine ranks second only to Dairy. Since January 1, equine-related pages have collected 57,226 visits. This includes the main Equine Science pages, the Penn State Horse Newsletter, and the 4-H Horse Program.

Goats
Pages addressing Goat Health, Nutrition, and Reproduction and the 4-H Goat Program received the third most visits - 28,126 since January 1.

Publications
The Publications Catalog is one of the most valued resources on the DAS site, getting 19,096 visits so far this year. The catalog contains articles, fact sheets, presentations, videos, podcasts, and other multimedia.

Faculty-Staff Directory
Users frequently seek contact information (in addition to other material) when visiting a site. So not surprisingly, our Faculty-Staff Directory averages about 2,000 visits each month. So far this year, it has received 15,563 visits. Along with contact information, visitors are interested in vitae, publications, and individuals’ Web sites, such as the Dairy and Animal Science Blogs.

A few words on technology

These days, most of our site visitors have high-speed connections and current-generation Web browsers. A significant number, however, still use dialup (nearly 7,000 site visits so far this year) and have older Web browsers. However, this does not pose a problem because the Web Standards-compliancy of das.psu.edu means that its content is accessible regardless of connection speed or browser generation.

Thank you for your loyalty! Now, what can we do better?

We appreciate how our users have let us know that the DAS Web site is providing informative, usable content. You have made this clear not just through usage statistics, but through your comments and feedback.

We want to continue to improve your experience at das.psu.edu. Please let us know what you need.

I have to confess, until now the whole debate about genetically-modified (GM) food has pretty much passed me by.

Most of my career has been spent as a foreign correspondent.

But last summer I returned to the UK to start a new job with the BBC. I now glory in the title Rural Affairs Correspondent.

A big part of my new brief is to report on farming. It is my (sometimes painful) duty to attend agriculture conferences and seminars. I also meet many farmers on their farms.

And over the months, time and time again the issue of GM has been raised.

I have been left in no doubt that many UK farmers - and others in the food production industry - think that GM is an important tool which can improve their efficiency, but which has been denied to them.

All of this, you could argue, counts for very little. Of course, farmers want to increase yields, or get the same yield using less land, less sprays, less fertilizer.

And anyway, did not we as a nation make up our minds about GM almost a decade ago?

You remember: environmentalists successfully branded GM “Frankenstein Food” - they warned us of the dangers of contaminating our environment, and of unleashing powerful and unpredictable forces into the British countryside.

As a nation we came down on their side of the argument. Although there is no law against growing GM in the UK, the regulations mean it is a hostile environment for the agri-business brigade. And so it remains.

So why go back to the debate? Well, two reasons strike me immediately.

The first is that - unlike 10 years ago - we are now gripped by a global food crisis. Where there were once grain mountains there are now shortages.

The second thing that has changed is the fact that in other parts of the world GM is now being grown in massive amounts. It is reckoned that an area twice the size of Britain is now under GM crops.

And guess what? There have so far been no reports of the environmental or human health disasters that we were all warned about.

So with that in mind, I set out with a question: is it time to rethink GM?

AMERICA

Let us start in America.

While we in Europe have rejected growing GM crops, the United States has enthusiastically embraced the new technology.

Thousands of hectares of land are now covered in GM crops. Most meals consumed in America’s ultimate consumer society will have some GM content.

It is something that Americans, generally, do not even think about. Certainly, throughout the four years my family and I spent in New York we must have eaten hundreds of meals containing GM in blissful ignorance.

The main GM food crops are soya - which produces important protein - and maize. Both have been genetically modified to produce bigger yields or the same yield for less input (less herbicide, insecticide, fertilizer).

And behind it all (or almost all of it) is the giant Monsanto corporation. A multi-billion dollar world-wide outfit that dominates the world of GM.

As a journalist, getting access to what the green lobby regards as the “heart of darkness” is not easy.

But after some gentle negotiating we were welcomed to St Louis, Missouri, Monsanto’s global headquarters.

Here, some of the leading scientists in the field are working on ways to improve crops and yields.

Chatting to the technicians, you can tell they are a little bemused at being labelled the architects of “Frankenstein Foods”. They say they simply want to make things more efficient for farmers - and so better for consumers.

The chief executive Hugh Grant, originally from Glasgow in Scotland, seems puzzled at the European distrust of GM technology.

“The scientific case is very clear. This does now get down to people saying 12 years have passed, now’s the time to make some calls.

“Europe continues to wait, while countries like India aggressively move ahead, and British scientists fill their suitcases and come here to do this research because they can’t do it at home,” Mr Grant says.

Monsanto is happy to provide stats which say that at least 90% of the farmers they deal with are happy with their product.

But there is no ignoring the fact that Monsanto is a hugely controversial company.

In the US, I found that for some farmers the problem is not so much a distrust of GM technology, but rather the way, they say, it makes them fall under the complete control of the biotech giants.

On his farm in Missouri I met Roger Parry. An old school good ol’ boy, complete with battered old pick-up truck and equally battered baseball hat.

He is one of the minority of US farmers resisting GM. He told me that the big business of biotech is making it tough for farmers to make their own decisions about what to grow. Almost all of the seed available is GM seed.

“I think that if farmers had real choices out here, that they would do things differently. When it’s time to plant, farmers are going to plant.”If all you’ve got is genetically modified soybeans, and it’s time for seed to go in the ground, that’s what’s going to go in the ground.

“So, it’s the availability of supply, and if that’s cut off, it’s awful tough to go shopping around when the sun is shining and you’ve got a few days to get your seed in the ground,” Mr Parry says.

We Europeans could (if we wanted to) view America’s GM project as the biggest field trial in history.

Ten years down the line, there have been no reports of environmental problems caused by GM. Also there have been no reported cases of human illness because of eating GM food.

But does that mean we need GM? Does it mean that GM is safe?

UK/EUROPE

Back in Europe, there are some GM crops growing and the occasional field test, but red tape and activists mean that most crops - especially in the UK where there is no commercial GM - do not make it to market.

Scientists say they are being left behind. They say they could be forging ahead with GM crops specifically for European conditions.

Some small-scale research is being done, for instance, on developing a potato that is resistant to blight. But it really does feel like small beer.

Clearly, the environment here is very different to America. Where Monsanto in Missouri opened their doors to us, researchers conducting the field trial of pest resistant spuds “somewhere in the UK” would not let us film.

It is frustrating, but who can really blame them? Bitter experience shows that once the word gets out that a GM field trial is under way, the environmentalists move in and destroy it.

I get the feeling that most people in Britain instinctively distrust “industrialized agriculture”.

We would much rather think of farms that look like the idyllic 800 acres belonging to Lord Melchett of the Soil Association.

He believes that his organic methods are efficient enough and versatile enough to feed this country, and to feed the world.

And he is 100% against GM crops. For him, the global food crisis and America’s apparently trouble-free GM experience change nothing.

“It’s good for very very large agri-business farmers, bad for everyone else, very risky for the environment, still a huge amount of unknowns.

“Added to which, we know we can achieve what the GM industry has always claimed by other means,” Lord Melchett says.

That is certainly not the view of all British farmers.

In North Yorkshire, I met Richard Lister who is understandably a little confused about the UK policy on GM.

Richard is a pig farmer and feeds his stock on pellets which contain 20% soya. That soya is imported - much of it from the US - and so it will be GM.

Indeed, many of the animals that go to produce UK meat and dairy products will have been fed on GM.

Why then, asks Richard cannot he grow GM feed on his own farm?

“GM is probably a win-win solution for consumers and farmers alike,” he says.

“First of all, GM is enabling farmers to grow more crop from the same amount of acreage in a world where we’re struggling to feed the population. That has to be good. It’s also enabling farmers to grow the crops with less use of insecticides, or fungicides or weed killers. Again, that’s a green win. Together, I think it’s technology for the future,” Mr Lister says.

——–

*Posted on BBC on May 29, 2008.

The United Nations (UN) Food Summit (High-Level Conference on World Food Security), held in Rome in early June, 2008, was designed to address food security issues in the face of soaring food prices (see Figure below), and the growing challenges associated with rising energy costs, and how this has impacted food prices and food security.

The increase in food prices is astounding! For example, during the early part of 2008, nominal prices of all major food commodities reached their highest levels in the past 50 years. For the first time, the annual global food import bill will surpass $1trillion (FAO, Food Outlook, June 2008)!

Part of the food price “shock” relates to level of current food stocks (reserves) in the World. Since 1995, global cereal stock levels have declined at a rate of about 3.5% per year…which is due to demand growth surpassing supply (FAO, 2008). FAO is estimating that by the end of 2008, global cereal stocks will decrease an additional 5%, reaching their lowest levels in the past 25 years!

Identifying strategies to increase food production (and efficiency) are clearly among the the biggest challenges we confront. I have written about various aspects of this in previous Terry Etherton blogs. It is important to appreciate that developing and implementing solutions to these problem is not easy, cheap…and, certainly doesn’t happen quickly.

Unfortunately, the Declaration published from the UN Food Summit provides little assurance that anything will be done by the UN to solve the problems! It would have been far better to invest the money frittered away supporting the UN Food Summit on research to pursue new ways to improve food production and food production efficiency.

At the core of “research needs” is the need for a much larger investment in biotechnology research for food production. The advances in plant and animal biotechnology and their impact on food production and productive efficiency have been impressive. We, however, must continue to invest in developing new science-based food biotechnologies for application on the farm..to feed a growing World population. This need coincides with a current “funding environment” for agricultural scientific research in the U.S. that is, at best, “modest”. This certainly does not help this situation.

My encouragement is to increase the investment in science. Historically, this has led to the development and application of new discoveries that benefit production agriculture in the World. We should not be “fiddling” away precious time and resources that could be invested in science to help feed the global village.

Unfortunately, many government and inter-government agencies are spending more time fiddling than finding ways to increase food production and productive efficiency. This is unfortunate given the current era of soaring food prices, and the reality we have of needing to find ways to feed a growing World population.

Many of our greatest medical advances have been made through the use of animal models in research. There are, for example, mouse models for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and any number of animal models for cancer, as well as HIV. There is no question, we owe the progress made in treating these diseases to animal research.

So, I was pleased to see when the April issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation landed on my desk that scientists (Rogers et al., J. Clin. Invest. 118:1571-1577) at the University of Iowa and University of Missouri had published a paper outlining something entirely new, a pig model for cystic fibrosis. According to the scientists, existing mouse models are inadequate because they don’t develop the lung and pancreatic disease that causes the death of so many cystic fibrosis patients. In addition, the new pigs to be used for the study of cystic fibrosis were produced using the techniques of modern biotechnology or genetic engineering.

The paper was all the more poignant for me because the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), the organization in Washington, D.C. for whom I work, represents Food & Agricultural biotechnology, as well as the Health Care component of biotechnology.

From time to time in our staff meetings at BIO, we are fortunate enough to meet with a patient who has benefited from biotech therapies. Recently we were introduced to a cystic fibrosis patient. She is a remarkable young woman. She is talented, smart, and an advocate for her disease here in Washington. And most importantly, she is full of life. And that is what biotechnology and animal research do – they give the gift of life.

I hope that this new animal model will help her and others like her by giving the gift of life.

It is hard to believe that two years have past since I launched the Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology and Terry Etherton’s Blog on Hormones, Biotechnology and Food Safety.

The driving force for the creation of these blogs was to provide a public forum for presenting science-based facts about numerous issues that broadly relate to the use of biotechnologies and technologies for food production. Given all the “stuff” that has been spewed out by opponents of science and biotechnology over the past two years, there is an ever greater need for scientists and concerned consumers to defend the role of science in society.

As I have written in my blogs, the anti-science activist groups are well organized and funded. Moreover, the scientific community continues to remain quiet.

Recently, the American Council on Science and Health presented the first Henry I. Miller Award for Excellence in Public Health Education to Dr. Henry Miller. This award was created to honor scientists who speak out on health and science issues. I applaud Dr. Miller and the American Council on Science and Health! I, too, encourage other scientists to come out of their classrooms and laboratories to take on those who distort science…the luddites who attack science and technological innovation.

For those of you who care about the scientific method and the discoveries made in laboratories, some of which become incredibly valuable products that benefit society, my encouragement is to become involved in the public discussion…to defend science and the right to use safe and beneficial products of biotechnology!

…on to Year 3!

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.

More vertical integration, what many consider the “evil empire” afflicting segments of food production, is headed toward dairy. As in other industries, most vertical integration pressure will come from the top down, in an effort to squeeze as much money out of incremental margins as possible. But in an evolving business climate, I think more dairy pressure will ultimately come from the bottom up.

As I mentioned previously (February 2008 Midwest DairyBusiness, “Who’s sustaining what?”), I attended the International Dairy Foods Association Dairy Forum ’08. I wish I would have counted how many times I heard the comment – or a variation of it – from a speaker who said “it is the responsibility of the cooperative/processor/marketer/retailer to protect the perception of the consumer.” It’s pretty tough to build a case against that comment, since consumers ultimately pay the bills and, if you believe conventional wisdom, “the consumer is always right” (purchasing imitation pet testicles for their neutered pets’ self esteem, aside).

Disheartening in my conversations was not once did I hear a single comment claiming any responsibility to protect the integrity and livelihood of the supplier/producer. I asked. That’s troubling at a time when producers are being attacked on so many fronts, especially in animal welfare, production technology and environmental areas.

The checkoff-funded Midwest Dairy Association and others are creating tools to “promote” producers. Some small dairy companies base their entire marketing programs on producer integrity. But many others have focused so hard on the products that they have lost sight of producers and, in my 30 years in ag journalism, I have never heard from so many producers who believe they are being hung out to dry by their business and organization leaders. I guess it’s a cruel world.

So my first case for more bottoms-up vertical integration is that, if those on top are throwing you under the bus, why not get your own bus?

Second, playing into bottoms-up vertical integration is the emerging trend of consumers seeking locally sourced food from someone they know and trust. Numerous studies show farmers rank among the highest on the consumers’ reputation meter. What better way to put a face on a product than to put your face on your product?

Third, each step in the food chain – from production of the raw product to processing, packaging, marketing and transporting – adds value, costs and friction. As producers become more savvy marketers and are able to manage volume processing and packaging, it enables them to embrace those steps, instead of outsourcing them.

That ties in with a final ingredient – capital. Many “artisans” strive to make a direct connection to consumers on a small scale, but often lack the financial resources. As larger producers combine knowledge with capital, vertical integration becomes possible. Throw in the ability to reduce transportation costs and generate energy from manure, and the path becomes even smoother, with social and environmental pluses.

There are reasons why processing, packaging and marketing have become specialized. It’s a tough business, compounded by competition, policies and regulations at every level. Bottoms-up vertical integration takes work and money, and undoubtedly many will fail. It adds risks at every level. There are business cemeteries full of people who have already tried. It will take the right people, with the right products, in the right markets.

But I’m hearing from more entrepreneurs who, when push comes to shove, would rather press their noses up against their own bottoms, and not against someone else’s.

Posted with permission.

The buzzword at the International Dairy Foods Association’s Dairy Forum ’08 was “sustainability.” While the word gives everyone a warm and fuzzy feeling they’re doing something – anything – to make the world a better place to live, the definition of “sustainability” can be elusive and confusing. Many Dairy Forum speakers used the term to cover environmental and social aspects of milk and dairy product production, packaging and transportation.

While such goals are admirable and, like objects in our rearview mirror – closer than they appear – one of the messages I took home was that everyone needed to jump on the bandwagon, not only to be good global citizens, but also to capture the “value-added” premiums the marketplace is apparently willing to pay for a “sustainable” label.

Hey, I’m a capitalist, and if it ended there, great. But it doesn’t. While many find “sustainability” hard to define, they are sure they know it when they see it. Many of these same people want to impose their enlightened vision of “sustainability” on others. In many cases, the inconvenient truth is that the push for “sustainability” has more to do with market share than it does with being environmentally and socially conscious.

As I write this, there is an outgrowth of this dilemma. Under pressure to be more “sustainable,” several universities are in the “Catch-22” position of losing commercial markets – and much-needed funding from the sale of milk or crops – or give up researching approved technologies. Who wins there?

No doubt about it, we can all do better when it comes to caring for the present and future condition of our planet. But when it comes to “sustainability,” I left the Dairy Forum with some unanswered questions:

• Where does the balance of efficient, economic production – using available knowledge and applying technology to produce food in quantities to feed a world population rushing headlong toward 7 billion people – fit in our definition of “sustainability?”
• Isn’t that what modern agriculture is about – sustaining life in a responsible manner?

Speaking of questions, one of the fundamental questions of any geographically based industry is this: once weakened or lost, can it be regained? In my lifetime, that question has arisen in Detroit’s auto industry and across steel country – now the Rust Belt. It is also a question faced by the Midwest dairy industry in the 1990s, as investment, cows and young brilliant minds moved elsewhere. In some cases, dairy producers were unable to sustain against activists with a different vision of animal agriculture and the regional geography. That impact was probably felt nowhere more so than Minnesota.

Can the Midwest dairy industry be sustained and grow? That remains to be seen. Years ago, I probably would have said “no.” But as Minnesota Milk Producers Association executive director Bob Lefebvre details in the February 2008 issue of Midwest DairyBusiness (see “A change from within”), it takes more than changing downward spirals in cows and infrastructure, but also a change in mindset and leadership, before it’s too late. It’s happening in the Midwest.

We’re in a dairy era some say has a “triple bottom line” – economic, environmental and social. Whether for the sake of future food production, or the health of a regional dairy industry, the only sustainable “sustainability” is built on practicality; not on a single definition, and not in a rush for market share based on whatever social tail that is wagging the dog.

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.