rBGH Labeling May Harm Dairy Industry 

NICK WOLFMEYER / Badger Herald (Wisconsin) 22sep03

rBGH is Monsanto's genetically engineered cattle drug - it's banned in all major industrialised countries outside the US where Monsanto

Consumers are paying up to three dollars more for non-genetically modified milk and their buying behavior is causing milk prices to fall, according to a University of Wisconsin study released last week. The study may have broad implications on the issue of milk labeling in the dairy industry.

Jeremy Foltz, the UW agriculture and applied economics professor who directed the study, said milk free of recombinant bovine somatotropin, known as rBST or rBGH, represent a small share of the market.

"[Organic and rBST-free milks] together represent barely one percent of the overall market, but the people that are buying them are paying significant premiums of $1.50 extra per gallon for rBST-free and $3 extra for organic," Foltz said. "Our study found that just having these types of labels has a competitive effect and drops [the price of all types of milk] by 2 cents a gallon. Whether you drink it or not, you benefit from it being in the market because it adds competition."

Recombinant bovine growth hormone is an artificial growth hormone that increases milk productivity in cows. The FDA approved the hormone additives in 1993 amid a national controversy over genetically modified foods.

Once touted as a revolution in dairy farming, rBST has been adopted by about 15 percent of U.S. dairy herds, which account for roughly one-third of the nation's cows. Its use has since been banned by Canada and the European Union.

Meanwhile, the introduction of rBST in the United States has coincided with the organic milk industry's rise as the fastest growing segment of the dairy industry, creating a polarization of the industry that has turned the rBST's safety issue into an issue of legality of milk labeling.

Foltz, who co-authored the study with University of British Columbia assistant professor of marketing Tirtha Dhar, said it was possible the study would increase the labeling of rBST-free milk.

"It requires a little bit of organization on the processing side, but consumers are willing to pay significant premiums, and in most parts of the country it's not hard to find farmers who are not using rBST," Foltz said.

Foltz said it is not a foregone conclusion that labeling milk as rBST- free will increase sales of rBST-free milk. Instead, Foltz said that his study shows people are more willing to pay for the whole organic process.

Monsanto, a St. Louis-based company that manufactures rBST, filed a lawsuit in July against a milk producer in Maine that labeled its milk as being rBST-free and paid its farmers a premium to avoid using rBST. Monsanto's lawsuit claimed that the producer's labeling implies their chemical is potentially harmful.

"One thing that could keep labeling from increasing is [the Monsanto lawsuit]," Foltz said. "People may be watching and waiting to see what the outcome of that suit is." Wisconsin currently permits the labeling of milk as rBST-free, but at least one prominent Wisconsin farmer agreed with Monsanto's position."

Todd Doornik, president of the Professional Dairy Producers of Wisconsin and owner of a 1,500-cow dairy farm in Baldwin, Wisconsin, said that labeling milk as rBST-free or organic could lead consumers to wrongly think other milk is unsafe or dangerous.

"I think anything that differentiates milk is bad for the industry," Doornik said.

Doornink said that although his farm does not use rBST, the decision whether to label his milk as rBST-free is up to his dairy coop. He added that he did not know if his milk is labeled as such, and suggested that most farmers are also unaware of whether their milk is labeled rBST-free.

Foltz's and Dhar's research was conducted by analyzing supermarket scanner data in 12 major U.S. cities and funded by UW's non-partisan Food System Resarch Group, which in recent years has taken on a major economic watchdog role in the U.S. food industry.

source: http://www.badgerherald.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/09/223f6e51be56a9e?in_archive=1 29sep03

Many thanks for sedning this article to NGIN http://www.ngin.org.uk

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

Letters to the Editor

November 04, 2001

"What the hell is in my milk?" This question keeps resonating in my head after hearing that Babcock Dairy Hall is choosing not to guarantee that their milk is Bovine Growth Hormone free. The fact that I don't have the right to choose whether I want BGHs in my milk and the fact that BGHs are not exactly helping to keep family dairy farms in the business is really quite frustrating. I was shocked after hearing John Stauber speak Thursday on the history of rBGH/rBST and the apathy of the Babcock Dairy Hall. If we hypothetically live in a democratic society, why is it that consumers do not have the right to choose if they want their milk jacked up with hormones?

The dairy industry should be accredited with doing a fantastic public relations job in brainwashing the public that rBGH benefits them, while not mentioning anything about mastitis and its impact on cows. It is even more infuriating to hear the apathetic attitude from the Food and Drug Administration on testing the impacts of BGHs on humans.

BGHs may be causing devastating socio-economic effects. Milk production in cows injected with BGH increases by about ten percent, therefore causing prices to fall across the board, not to mention the fact that from a socio-economic standpoint, BGHs are a loser product. The fact that Babcock Dairy Hall will not even guarantee that their milk will be BGH free and supporting the use of BGHs is unacceptable. I urge all people in Madison to research what I'm talking about, and should you arrive at the same conclusion I did, call up Babcock Dairy Hall and tell them how appalling their actions are.

Bryan Reagan, UW student

source: http://www.badgerherald.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2001/11/04/3be5e2c1658b1?in_archive=1 29sep03

CONFUSED

Letters to the editor

November 06, 2001

I could just scream after reading two letters in The Badger Herald that lambasted Babcock Hall for lifting its ban on milk that contains bovine growth hormones. I am from a dairy farm, and I am still quite in tune with the industry. rBGH/BST is a naturally occurring hormone in dairy animals, just not at very high levels.

There are good reasons that farmers use these hormones in their animals. One is that with the low prices that we dairy farmers in Wisconsin receive per pound of milk, it makes sense to increase production to get paid better. Secondly, these hormones have gone through much testing to even be released to the producers.

Next, do people really believe that all farmers use their animals for a source of income? Many farmers out there would not use products that may harm their animals, because they do care for them.

I believe that the FDA and USDA have done studies to see whether or not these hormones are traceable in fluid milk. Since they are naturally occurring, they are not easily discernable from other hormones in milk.

Also, there are many other causes of mastitis in dairy animals besides the use of rBGH/BST. The cleanliness of animals' living space plays a major role in lowering chances of mastitis. Proper cleaning and sanitation before milking by the farmers is the best preventative measure against mastitis.

I just would like the public to consider what farmers must go through to put quality food on your table every single day. We are not in business to harm anyone. If you want to direct your protests at anyone, do so toward our representatives in Washington, who have yet to really help us in the fight against the poor price we receive for our products.

Joe Theis, UW senior

source: http://www.badgerherald.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2001/11/06/3be88645e997e?in_archive=1 29sep03