Penn Label Ban Update Posted by Reggie at 11/29/07 02:52 PM

More than 65 dairy farmers, consumer, farm and agricultural, public health, animal protection and environmental organizations, food processors and retailers today wrote to Pennsylvania Governor Edward G. Rendell to protest the recent Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) action which would prohibit state farmers from telling consumers that they aren’t using artificial hormones on their dairy cows. A copy of the letter can be found here:

The labels most consumers have seen in stores were approved by FDA and represent the only way a producer who does not use artifical hormones can effectively communicate with consumers who do not want to consume dairy products made with artificial hormones.

If the Pennsylvania ruling is upheld and catches on, it will be a bad precedent for future labels relating to antibiotic use or cloning. Producers should have the right to tell the truth and consumers have the right to know.

comments (11)

1 Posted by April Schmitt at 12/04/07 10:12 PM

This is one of the most unethical and unhealthy ideas that I've heard of. What is the reason for this giant step backwards. When ever anything doesn't make sense, I figure it's because of money influences. Is there anything that we can do to influence this decision for the better?

2 Posted by Don at 12/23/07 03:29 PM

Story in today's Philadelphia Inquirer:

Hormone labeling of Pa. milk to end
It can unfairly imply that milk from injected cows isn't safe, officials say.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/health_science/daily/20071223_Hormone_labeling_of_Pa__milk_to_end.html

3 Posted by Bonnie at 12/23/07 05:34 PM

well if we are really supposed to be 'fair', what about the consumers right to know? why on earth wouldn't that be the first consideration? I'm beginning to wonder 'where' to live to get what I need for my family's health.

4 Posted by Barbara at 01/15/08 11:58 AM

Why on earth isn't this a First Amendment issue? What is the government's interest in restraining sellers from communication true information about their product to potential buyers? The Pennyslvania Department of Agriculture is not getting good legal advice here, that's obvious, or this proposed regulation would never have gotten as far as it has.

I heard Michael Hansen of CU today on Radio Times. You need to swing a little harder Michael! Monsanto isn't playing softball-- that shill of theirs walked all over you, though you had the better argument by far. Get mad!!

5 Posted by ian at 01/18/08 06:26 AM

The unpublished response by John Verrall to the Philadelphia Inquirer story is well worth reading.. it is also available at:
http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=100&page=1

Re. - Philadelphia Inquirer Online, 12/23/2007, Front Page - 'Hormone Labeling of Pa. Milk to End'

It was with interest I read this headline on Sunday 23rd December, 'Hormone labeling of Pa. Milk to end - It can unfairly imply that milk from injected cows isn't safe, officials say.'
(http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20071223_Hormone_labeling_of_Pa__milk_to_end.html?text=med )

To make such a statement "officials" are grossly irresponsible and if Agricultural Secretary Dennis Wolff and his committee end the labelling of milk from cows not administered bovine somatotropin (rbST) they will be guilty of putting at risk the lives of the citizens of Pennsylvania.

It has been demonstrated that milk from cows administered bovine somatotropin is NOT SAFE (ie not 'free from danger' - Collins Dictionary, not 'protected from danger or risk' - Oxford English Dictionary) with increased levels of IGF1 (growth hormone) such milk gives rise to "concern about enhanced cell proliferation of the gut mucosa and therefore increased prevalence of carcinoma in the large bowel."
http://www.vpc.gov.uk/reports/rbstreptb.pdf
See also Challacombe and Wheeler (Lancet 1994 344, 815-816)

Not only is the milk derived from rbST not safe, but so is bovine somatotropin itself, when administered to cows.

A detailed inquiry by the both the UK Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) in 1999 (http://www.vpc.gov.uk/reports/rbstreptb.pdf ) and the Report of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association Expert Panel on rbST (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/vet/issues-enjeux/rbst-stbr/rep_cvma-rap_acdv_tc-tm_e.html ) concluded that:

"the use of Bovine Somatotropin adversely affects the health and welfare of the cow".

It has been proven that in cattle receiving rbST injections, there are increases in the incidence of:
Mastitis* - by 25%
Lameness - by 50%
Infertility - by 18%
& Adverse reactions at the injection site - 'the presence of lesions have often not fully regressed before the next injection is due.'
(* See Millstone et al http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v371/n6499/abs/371647a0.html
[Article also available here http://www.unsafescience.com/bgh.html ])

With a marked increase in the incidence of mastitis (an infection of the udder), lesions at the site of injection, and stress-related conditions of lameness and infertility, the cow becomes an overworked rundown "factory" more likely to produce sub-standard milk - with an increased possibility of both infection and /or the presence of antibiotics used to combat such conditions.

At the time Monsanto marketed bovine somatotropin in 1994, none of the above untoward affects and hazards was made apparent. It was stated by the manufacturers and supporting scientific staff, that the increased incidence of mastitis was only in line with the increased milk yield; yet this proved not to be the case. It was also stated that the increased production of IGF1 (a growth hormone), following the administration of rbST, was destroyed by pasteurisation and in the gut by natural digestion – neither is the case; the increased IGF1 produced in the milk is protected from normal digestion by the casein in milk, suggested by Mepham and Schofield (Health Aspects of bST Milk), indicated by Xian et al (J. Endocrinol. 146, 215-224) and subsequently proven by Kimura et al (JPET 28.3 611-687 1997).

No chronic toxicity testing of rbST has been reported; the longest test involved the administration of rbST to thirty rats over ninety days.

Since neither man nor beast derives any therapeutic benefit from the use of bovine somatotropin, the only possible beneficiaries could be the dairyman and the manufacturer of bovine somatotropin.

If one refers to the paper, 'The Impact of Bovine Somatotropin on Farm Profits,' by Loren W. Tauer of Cornell University; under 'Conclusion' she states, 'The average profit response from the use of bST was statistically zero, but larger and well-managed farms may be making a profit from bST. That implies that some farmers may be losing money using bST, although no statistical negative profit response from bST was measured from any sub-group.'

-- So there is only one beneficiary.

Should the population of Pennsylvania not be concerned with the sufferings of the cow due to increased mastitis, lameness, infertility and injection site lesions, they should be extremely concerned for their own health.

When available evidence gives rise to such concern regarding matters of human health, we in Europe (with a population of 490 million ) normally abide by "The Precautionary Principle" - when in doubt 'err on the side of caution, until such time as the matter has been investigated further - and resolved.

Monsanto is quite correct in one thing, that to describe milk derived from cows not administered rbST as 'Hormone Free,' is incorrect, as all milk does contain small quantities of hormone. However, the truth is that milk produced by cows; administered bovine somatotropin (rbST) is not safe.

Perhaps in future, dairies and distributors could adopt an identification which does not say 'Hormone Free' but, for example:

[image of 'McNAB' label as at
http://www.gmwatch.org/p1temp.asp?pid=100&page=1 ]

McNAB = Milk from Cows Not Administered Bovine Somatotropin

Or just a simple 'Natural Milk' label, to which no one could object!

John Verrall MRPS, DBA
Battle, E. Sussex, UK

6 Posted by Reggie James at 01/23/08 01:48 PM

Update : Pennsyvania reverses artificial hormone labeling ban.

7 Posted by Dale at 02/02/08 08:46 AM

Thats a real cute story ian, sounds like it is full of alot of "facts" and backed up by a bunch of sciencetific sources such as gmwatch,nature.com,unsafescience.com,vcp.gov. How about getting some sources such as real scientist from many universities,and profesionals that do REAL food science studies and actually know the facts of rbst, all and I forgot about the little place called the FDA and USDA. I think they would all agree that all your little "facts" are just activist driven nonsense,of course i am sure you think they all have monsanto in there pockets. Who is in your pocket? I konw who isnt, anyone who actually knows the real facts about rbst.

8 Posted by wayne at 02/02/08 02:28 PM

Hey reggie I have a website you need to check out.It is a little more factual than your links.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14458802/

9 Posted by catwalker at 02/05/08 06:29 PM

Well, Dale, it may come as a surprise to you that the journal Nature IS where the REAL scientists (ie, university researchers) publish. It is arguably the premier biological sciences journal. The Lancet (also cited above, you missed that one) is similarly one of the top, if not the top, medical journal. The reference to www.unsafescience.com above was a reprint of the Nature article. The VPC is a UK (ie, British) government agency, part of a government dept similar to the USDA.

Ian shared a summary by John Verrall, a scientist with the British VPC. The summary contains facts with references so that we can, if we like, check them out and learn more. You offered us some sarcasm, and cast aspersions all around, hinting at "other facts" about rbST that you keep to yourself (a good indication that if there are such facts, you don't actually know them). Unless you put them on the table (with references), you make no substantive contribution to the discussion. Ad hominem arguments aren't useful.

John Verrall makes a solid case, and deserves a serious response, not a Rush Limbaugh-style smear.

Who's pocket are YOU in?

10 Posted by Dale at 02/11/08 06:42 PM

well catwalker(if that is your real name)can you please tell me if there was a risk to public health by rbst why would the FDA stand behind there research of rbst.Well after that Rush comment, I guess you think the Bush administration is trying to kill people.You better watch out Dick Chaney might come after you.As far as animal health I don't need any experts to tell me anything,why you ask because I have been using it since 1996. Any cow with a udder can get mastitis. My somatic cell count in 1996 was 300,000 today it is

11 Posted by PR at 03/20/08 03:13 PM

Simple news---There is no difference, even to the molecular level in milk from the rbst treated cow and those not treated. The only difference is about a 7% increase in milk produced. Anything else is not science based. Why make a claim that has no relation to the product being sold--none.

By the same token we would ban artificial insemination, selective breeding, many of the other husbandry advances of the last fifty years.