Michael Schiavo pleads case on CNN

Amazing Video and Books from Alex Jones


Alex Jones' American Dictators -- Order Now and let Your Friends and Family Know the Truth about the Staged Elections

Monsanto Tries to Bully Dairies That Are Not Injecting Their Cows with Controversial Genetically Engineered Hormone

Monsanto having a cow in milk label dispute
'Hormone free' tag unfair, company says

Chicago Tribune | April 15, 2007
Stephen J. Hedges

WASHINGTON -- Agribusiness giant Monsanto Co. is challenging a growing trend among dairies to label their milk "hormone free," saying those claims mislead consumers into believing that the cow growth hormone Monsanto makes is unsafe.

In an action that could send ripples through the food industry, St. Louis-based Monsanto is moving aggressively against a group of dairies to halt the use of "hormone free." It said that such labels suggest that there is something unhealthy about its synthetic hormone drug.

In letters filed recently with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission, Monsanto protests that milk labels touting the fact that cows did not receive the hormone - known as rGBH, rBST or Posilac - have unfairly damaged its business, as well as that of dairy farmers who use the drug on their cows.

The FDA has found no difference in the milk produced by cows that received rBST and those that did not, Monsanto says. The hormone increases milk production by about 10 percent.

Monsanto's action reflects a shift in the food industry in recent years, as consumers demand more natural and organic foods and seek labeling that explains just what went into their production. Cartons of eggs, for example, increasingly boast that the chickens that produced them were "cage-free." Beef is marketed as "grass-fed." Dairies began tagging milk as "hormone free" soon after Monsanto won FDA approval for its growth hormone in 1993.


The food producers who use such labels say consumers have the right to know what is in their food and that they are responding to buyers' desires.

"Our customers tell us this is what they want," said Stanley Bennett, president of Oakhurst Dairy in Portland, Maine, which sells no-hormone milk. "They ask us for this."

Monsanto's latest claims renew a fight the company started several years ago when it sued Oakhurst, which is owned by Bennett's family. The case was settled in 2003 when Oakhurst agreed to include language on its labels that explains that the FDA has found no significant difference between milk from cows that were given rGBH, and those that did not get the hormone.

  Dairy pushes pledge Bennett and Oakhurst, though, have hardly shied away from using the no-hormones pitch in selling dairy products. The dairy pays farmers not to use the hormone.

"Oakhurst knows that consumers want a choice," its Web site says. "So Oakhurst will continue working only with local farmers who pledge not to use artificial growth hormone."

Monsanto contends that its hormone does not affect the cows' health or their milk's taste. An FDA review of the drug during its approval process found no difference between milk from cows that did or did not receive the growth hormone.

"False and deceptive advertising regarding milk and (rBST) has mislead consumers for years," Monsanto states in its complaint to the FTC. "These practices are clear violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act and result in higher milk price for consumers and less choice for dairy farmers."

While Monsanto won't release sales figures for its hormone, company spokesman Andrew Burchett said that "about a third of the dairy cows in the U.S. are in herds where farmers choose to use Posilac."

Posilac is the company's trademark name for the hormone.

In Illinois, the state Department of Public Health reached a settlement with three dairy producers in 1997 that resolved a federal lawsuit over "hormone free" claims on labels. Ben & Jerry's Homemade Ice Cream, Organic Valley Farms, a producer of diary and other items, and Stonyfield Farms, whose main product is yogurt, sued the state after it declined their request to use the "hormone free" language.

The Illinois settlement allows milk producers to use labels that read: "We oppose rBGH. The family farmers who supply our milk pledge not to treat their cows with rBGH."

Those labels must also include language that the FDA has not found a difference between milk produced from rBGH cows and those cows not given the hormone.

That's what is on milk labels sold at Whole Food Markets in Illinois and elsewhere.

"Our customers are very interested in it," said Will Betts, the Midwest region grocery coordinator for Whole Foods Market Inc. "They are concerned with a lot of factors. They're concerned with what they put in their bodies. While it's true that the studies haven't proven any difference [between milk from rBGH cows and those not given rBGH], they still want the most natural product they can get. The other issue is that they're concerned about the land and the animals."

  Monsanto answers critics In that regard, Whole Foods notes that "recent studies have supported earlier conclusions regarding the negative effects of rBGH/rBST on dairy cows. A report by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association on rBGH/rBST in November 1998 indicates that there are quantifiable reductions in the health of the cows treated with rBGH/rBST."

Monsanto's Burchett disputed those findings. In an e-mail, he said the Canadian study "was not as comprehensive in its review of the scientific literature on rBST as the U.S. FDA pre- and post-approval review of Posilac."

He also said the study "included data based on the use of different product formulations, dose levels and application practices of prototype products from more than one company that were never approved for commercial use."

"Farmers depend on the health and well-being of their herds and will not choose to use products that are not beneficial," Burchett said. "A large number of dairy producers have used Posilac with great success since the product was introduced 13 years ago."

An FDA spokeswoman said the agency would have no immediate response to Monsanto's most recent complaint, which was submitted April 3.

But in a statement, the agency said: "This drug was only approved after FDA established that it is effective and safe. Effectiveness means that Posilac does what the company claims (increases milk production). Safety covers three main areas: safety of the food products to humans, safety to the target animal (the cow) and safety to the environment."

Monsanto's complaint includes examples of labels and advertisement from 13 dairies.

For instance, milk from HP Hood, a diary operator based in Chelsea, Mass., carried a label that had "No Artificial Growth Hormones" on the package, along with an attached note that read "To Satisfy Our Customers."

Dutch-Way Dairy in Pennsylvania sells milk with labels touting, "No Added BST The way it's meant to be!"

That marketing logic, Monsanto complains, distorts the research on Posilac and the FDA's conclusions.

The "claim that milk from non-supplemented cow is healthier for children is patently false," Monsanto writes. "There is no evidence to suggest that milk from rBST-supplemented cows has any adverse developmental effect on children."


The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv . Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more - all for just 15 cents a day! Click here to subscribe! Find out the true story behind government sponsored terror, 7/7, Gladio and 9/11, get Terror Storm!

Enter recipient's e-mail:

Infowars.com is Copyright 2007 Alex Jones | Fair Use Notice

911:  The Road to Tyranny