Rick North is the man who put the fight against rBGH on our radar. As the Director of the Campaign for Safe Food Program at Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, Rick leads grass roots efforts to discontinue the use of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST) in cows and to ensure that genetically engineered biopharmaceutical crops do not contaminate the human food supply or environment and speaks on the topic regularly. Rick will retire January 31 so that he can become a full-time volunteer fighting undue corporate influence in our government and other aspects of our lives. He’s very concerned about the corporate take-over of our government and the unlimited funds coming into our election process. After the recent elections, he knew he needed to do something. So, he’s taking it on. With a successful track record of beating Monsanto under his belt, we’re all lucky to have him in the trenches. Go Rick!

What issues have you been focused on?

Three main issues: Genetically engineered (GE) foods in general; rBGH (rBST) in dairy [genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone injected into lactating cows so that they produce more milk]; and the industrial meat system. We have major problems with each of them.

What inspires you to do this work?

I started years ago and it was all kind of by accident. I was volunteering for a church and doing research on how our eating habits affected our health and our environment and how we could help local farmers. I stumbled on information about GE foods and rBGH in particular and I became very concerned.

The strong, well-documented articles I read talked about how most industrialized countries had banned rBGH and how they found that it may cause cancer in humans. Most of my career had been working for the American Cancer Society, so that piqued my interest.

I showed the articles to my wife. She has three sisters each with cancer so she may be at higher risk. She read them and it took us about three seconds to decide not to buy rBGH milk. One thing led to another, I linked up with Oregon PSR and started this program.

What’s your overall vision?

The vision is to have a food supply and agricultural system that is safe and sustainable for all people. It is economically viable for farmers and safe for consumers.

What books and/or blogs are you reading right now?

A few books I recommend that deal with GMOs are: Jeffrey Smith’s Seeds of Deception; Andy Kimbrell’s Your Right to Know; and an older one, The Food Revolution by John Robbins; Lisa Weasel’s Food Fray; and one from a Mom’s point of view: The Unhealthy Truth by Robyn O’Brien.

Who’s in your community?

In Oregon, my world is PSR (and my wife). Our chief scientific advisor is Martin Donohoe. He’s a physician and has been the main guy right from the start. For rBGH, Michael Hansen is a Ph.D and a senior scientist with Consumers Union. He knows more about rBGH than anybody. And, then there are all the other organizations we work with. I’m also involved with a couple coalitions on GE foods and one that I facilitate is the rBGH Coalition, a nationwide coalition that plans strategies and campaigns.

What are your commitments?

Ten years ago, I always thought that if the FDA said something was safe, I figured it was safe. Once I got into this, through GE food and investigating, I realized it’s not necessarily true. So, I’m committed to educating the public on the real health and environmental risks of GE food and the industrial meat system. Hopefully enlightening people the way I was enlightened and working with people who are experts in the field. It’s more than education though, it’s motivating people to take action.

What are your goals?

The one specific goal we have for rBGH is to discontinue its use anywhere in the country; company by company, persuading them to go rBGH-free. Also having people vote with their dollars and stop buying products that allow it and putting pressure on the companies.

We have a national postcard campaign to Breyers and Dreyer’s ice cream companies, asking them, nicely, to stop using rBGH. They’ve received thousands of postcards asking them to stop, along with thousands of emails. So, this is how we work.

We also work with hospitals and big organizations in the same way. It’s a lot of persuasion; getting people to look at the research so they can make up their minds for themselves. The more people know about rBGH and GMOs in general, the more they avoid them.

What does change look like to you?

We did these postcard and email campaigns with Dannon and Yoplait and they got thousands and thousands of emails and postcards and finally stopped using rBGH. Now, there are virtually no dairies in Washington and Oregon using rBGH. We’ve had a lot of success. We’re at the point now where at least 75% of the milk in the country is rBGH-free, and we’re estimating that 75% of the yogurt is. When we started, 90% were using it. So, it’s been a great team effort.

Regarding the practicalities of enacting change, what planning is involved? What kind of outreach?

Take the rBGH efforts, which I facilitate and take the lead on in terms of setting strategies and agendas nationally to discuss it. We have lots of conference calls with the organizations with which we collaborate — collaborations that can number in over a hundred organizations working together toward a goal. Eighty percent of managing anything is clarifying who does what by when. If you can clarify people’s organizational roles, you’ve come a long way. So, we establish those roles and you go out and execute them.

Not all the work is proactive though. A few years ago, Monsanto was going around the states trying to get legislatures to pass a bill or rule that would ban or restrict rBGH-free labeling. They were losing the battle and they thought this would be a good strategy. It caught us by surprise and we spent the better part of two years stopping this in the legislatures and agriculture departments, state-by-state, and we won every one. But a lot of the work we had planned to be proactive had to be put on the back burner for these battles.

Organization, strategy and persistence.

What projects are affiliated with yours?

We work with a lot of organizations. And, I know how difficult it can be to work with coalitions and this has gone really quite smoothly. It’s not that we always agree with each other on everything. So, the organizations in our coalition, there’s GE Action Network, which is a listerv with different organizations that oppose GMOs. We have a lot of really good exchange of information.

Food and Water Watch. The Center for Food Safety. The Union of Concerned Scientists. Family Farm Defenders. National Family Farm Coalition. Organic Consumers Association. Humane Farming Association. Breast Cancer Action. Heath Care without Harm. Locally there’s NW RAGE (Northwest Resistance Against Genetic Engineering).

A lot of “projects” are in the courts or regulatory agencies: GE sugar beets, GE alfalfa, GE salmon. And, now ArborGen is threatening to plant GE eucalyptus trees in the southeast U.S. We have our hands full.

What projects and people have you got your eye on or are you impressed by?

The Center for Food Safety has done excellent work in the courts. They work with Earth Justice and there are a lot of lawyers there who have done a great job. Consumers Union and Food and Water Watch are very effective in terms of consumer advocacy and action.. There are so many. Health Care Without Harm has done really well to get hospitals to buy and serve safe and sustainably-produced food. Breast Cancer Action is great. Just about any that I’d name are small with limited budgets and it’s amazing how much we’ve accomplished with very little money; especially when you think of the millions Monsanto has to spend.

Where do you see the state of agriculture/food policy in the next 5-10 years? Is real policy change a real possibility?

Yes, absolutely. We’ve already seen real change. I think what we’re already seeing is a move toward buying more local and organic foods, two promising trends as well as the explosion of farmers markets and CSAs. People are learning more. They know more about their foods than they used to. They are making conscious choices and that’s a really good sign. Some areas of the country are obviously further along than others.

A negative trend though is in the industrial meat system and the worrisome consolidation of the industry, The confined animal feeding lots are just breeding grounds for disease. And, one other serious problem is that companies like Monsanto are buying up smaller independent seed companies. The more they buy them up the fewer choices we all have in terms of our food supply. I can’t think of a worse trend than that.

It’s kind of like the best of times and the worst of times.

What does the food movement need to do, be or have to be more effective?

A lot is just getting the word out. If people don’t know they can’t act. We can’t stop with education though. It has to be more than that. It is persuading and actively working with people to change their habits; part of that is personal habits and part is institutional. If someone has never contacted a company before, make it easy for them to contact a company. We need to motivate consumers to be more than just consumers; we need to motivate them to make their voices known.

What would you want to be your last meal on earth?

The same I ask for every year on my birthday: vegetarian lasagna, with rBGH-free cheese, obviously, tossed salad, garlic bread and chocolate cake (rBGH-free butter) for dessert.

Remember way back when when several states tried to ban “rbGH-free” claims on dairy? This was a few years ago now. Monsanto, who owned rbGH at the time, helped found a group of rbGH-loving dairy farmers called AFACT. AFACT then pushed to ban any label claims telling consumers which milk came from cows that had not been treated with rbGH. Naturally, that sparked tons of consumer outrage, and ultimately AFACT was unsuccessful in most states where they tried this.

Save for Ohio. Ohio was the one last state where it looked like they might win. Ultimately the fight went to the courts. But yesterday brought BIG news of a court decision in Ohio. The less significant news out of the court is that milk in Ohio can still say “rbGH-free” but it must also contain an FDA disclaimer saying “[t]he FDA has determined that no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-supplemented and non-rbST-supplemented cows.”

Now, here’s the BIG news. The court challenged the FDA’s finding that there is “no measurable compositional difference” between milk from rbGH-treated cows and milk from untreated cows. According to those who have worked on this issue for nearly two decades now (maybe more), the FDA’s claim that there was no compositional difference between milk from rbGH-treated and untreated cows was THE MAJOR roadblock to any good regulation. And the court finally struck it down, citing three reasons why the milk differs:

• Increased levels of the hormone IGF-1;
• A period of milk with lower nutritional quality during each lactation; and
• Increased somatic cell counts (i.e. more pus in the milk).

Below, you will find the exact language of the court’s ruling. The testimony submitted to the FDA’s Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee all the way back in 1993 by Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist at Consumers’ Union can be read here. Amazing how it only took 17 years to get the truth legally recognized.

The ruling said:

The district court held that the composition claims were inherently misleading because ‘they imply a compositional difference between those products that are produced with rb[ST] and those that are not,’ in contravention of the FDA’s finding that there is no measurable compositional difference between the two. This conclusion is belied by the record, however, which shows that, contrary to the district court’s assertion, a compositional difference does exist between milk from untreated cows and conventional milk (“conventional milk,” as used throughout this opinion, refers to milk from cows treated with rbST). As detailed by the amici parties seeking to strike down the Rule, the use of rbST in milk production has been shown to elevate the levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), a naturally-occurring hormone that in high levels is linked to several types of cancers, among other things. The amici also point to certain studies indicating that rbST use induces an unnatural period of milk production during a cow’s “negative energy phase.” According to these studies, milk produced during this stage is considered to be low quality due to its increased fat content and its decreased level of proteins. The amici further note that milk from treated cows contains higher somatic cell counts, which makes the milk turn sour more quickly and is another indicator of poor milk quality. This evidence precludes us from agreeing with the district court’s conclusion that there is no compositional difference between the two types of milk. In addition, and more salient to the regulation of composition claims like “rbST free,” the failure to discover rbST in conventional milk is not necessarily because the artificial hormone is absent in such milk, but rather because scientists have been unable to perfect a test to detect it. [emphasis added]

Originally published on La Vida Locavore

After acquiring rbGH from Monsanto, Elanco (part of Eli Lilly) has stepped up efforts to convince milk processors and the wider food industry that milk from rbGH-injected cows is safe. Central to their new campaign is a paper, commissioned through PR company Porter-Novelli, from eight prominent experts and academics in medicine and dairy science (Recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST): a safety assessment). The authors are Richard Raymond, former undersecretary for Food Safety at USDA, Connie Bales of Duke University Medical Centre, Dale Bauman of Cornell University, David Clemmons of the University of North Carolina, Ronald Kleinman of Harvard Medical school, Dante Lanna of the University of Sao Paolo, Stephen Nickerson of the University of Georgia, and Kristen Sejrsen of Aarhus University, Denmark.

The new paper was not peer-reviewed but it was presented at the July 2009 joint annual meeting of the American Dairy Science Association, the Canadian Society of Animal Science and the American Society of Animal Science in Montreal, Canada. It argues strongly for the benefits and safety of rbGH milk and has been widely distributed by Elanco. According to a rebuttal circulated by a number of consumer advocacy organisations, however, the paper misrepresents the position of various medical bodies.*

The paper claims, for instance, that the safety of rbGH is endorsed by the American Medical Association (AMA). Through their Campaign for Safe Food, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, has pointed out that the AMA has no policy on rbGH and offers no such endorsement. Instead, they note the April 2008 AMA newsletter cites past president Ron Davis saying “Hospitals should……use milk produced without recombinant bovine growth hormone.”

The new paper also claims the same endorsement from the American Cancer Society (ACS). This claim, Oregon PSR points out, is contradicted on the ACS’s own website and and this was confirmed by the ACS in an e-mail to the Bioscience Resource Project: “The American Cancer Society (ACS) has no formal position regarding rBGH,” stated the e-mail. Another endorsement claimed by the paper is from the American Association of Pediatrics, a claim also disputed by the coalition. “I can confirm that AAP does not endorse the safety of rbGH,” wrote an AAP spokesperson to the the Bioscience Resource Project, also in an e-mail.

The Bioscience Resource Project contacted various of the authors for clarification. One, Professor of Lactation Physiology Stephen Nickerson, was unaware of any errors. Second author and Dietitian Connie Bales declined to answer questions via e-mail or on the telephone. David Clemmons, however, accepted that the AMA, the AAP and the ACS endorsements were “technically untrue.” “We counted endorsement as failure to oppose rbGH,” he said.

Lead author Richard Raymond, however, in a written statement to the Bioscience Resource Project, said the authors stood by all the endorsements excepting that of the AAP. In the same statement he also clarified the papers’ assertion that 17 other “leading health organisations in the United States” also endorse “its safety for human consumption.” Asked to identify the organizations, his list included the American Council on Science and Health, the International Food Information Council and the “White House.”

According to Rick North of Oregon PSR, “Elanco’s numerous false statements and misrepresentations on endorsing organizations are only the tip of the iceberg. The entire report is riddled with similar inaccurate, misleading claims about rbGH itself.”

Dr. Raymond declined to say whether the authors planned to issue a public clarification. Author Kristen Sejrsen on the other hand remained unconcerned. “It’s only a scientific paper,” he said.

*The groups are: The Cancer Prevention Coalition, Consumers Union, Oregon PSR and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

Originally Published on The Bioscience Resource Project

The position has been vacant for months, perhaps because of the difficulties finding a candidate without lobbying ties that industry lobbyists won’t kick up too much dust about. But food safety is one of the most pressing domestic issues our country faces, and meat specifically has seen massive recalls as of late. The head of FSIS will by necessity need to take a more regulatory position at the USDA — a government office ridden with conflict of interest between promoting agriculture and regulating it — if we have hope of eating safer food. Therefore having someone in charge of this essential agency with experience and without industry ties is critical.

Unfortunately Wolff is disqualified on both counts. Not only does he have no previous food safety experience, but Wolff also is best known for siding with Monsanto to push for a ban on labeling rBGH, a growth hormone, in milk (we’ve written more about the politics and health effects of rBGH here, here, and here).

Tom Philpott wrote on the controversy:

In October 2007, [Wolff] moved to prevent his state’s dairy farmers from labeling their milk free of an artificial, genetically modified growth hormone called rBGH, then marketed by Monsanto. The ban of rBGH-free labels came down after some dairy processors began to demand milk grown without the synthetic hormone.

The act was widely read as a blatant attempt to protect his state’s large-scale dairy farms that relied on rBGH, as well as the interests of the company that marketed it, Monsanto. The GMO giant had been lobbying for years for a nationwide ban on rBGH labeling; in Wolff, they finally had a taker, in an important dairy state. Wolff’s official rationale: rBGH-free labels “confuse the pubic.” In an article at the time, New York Times reporter Andy Martin took a long, hard look at Wolff’s official reasoning. His conclusion: “It’s hard … to find much merit in Mr. Wolff’s arguments for the labeling ban.”

The ban generated so much outrage (much of it from dairy farmers who rejected rBGH use) that within months, Pennsylvania Gov. Rendell intervened to reverse it.

The trend of resisting the ban on labeling of rBGH milk products has continued into other states, like Kansas and Ohio, part of a growing movement of consumers who prefer to know what is in their food rather than being left in the dark. Should Wolff be circulating as a candidate again at the USDA, the administration should take into consideration that posting him could unleash consumer outrage, and would fail to make our food system safer.

The International Dairy Foods Association and the Organic Trade Association have mounted an appeal, and the Ohio courts have postponed enforcement of the rule until its resolution. On July 23 these associations will enter mediation with the Ohio Department of Agriculture. The allied groups are encouraging opponents of the rule to write Governor Strickland and urge him to rescind it before the mediation gets underway.

“Governor Strickland has essentially made it illegal to tell the truth,” said Carol Goland, Executive Director of the Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association. “Rather than continue to defend this rule in litigation, we urge the Governor to rethink the wisdom of spending State resources to support a rule that interferes with Ohioans’ ability to make an informed decision about the dairy products they buy, with farmers and dairies’ rights to free speech, and with consumer right-to-know. In this era of increased concern over how our food is produced, Ohio should be making more information available, not less.”

Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH) is a genetically engineered, artificial hormone that induces cows to produce more milk. (Civil Eats has covered rbGH here and here and here.) Strickland’s rule is based on an 18-year-old FDA review; however, FDA’s own publications, as well as subsequent scientific studies have shown that there are significant differences, some of which may affect human health.

“This rule fails to serve consumers, dairy processors, and Ohio’s family farmers because it is confusing and generally misleading as to the potential dangers of rbGH-tainted milk,” said Dr. Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist at Consumers Union. ”Moreover, the disclaimer itself is misleading as there are, in fact, significant differences between milk from cows treated with rbGH and from cows not treated with the artificial growth hormone.”

Scientists from Canada and the EU have expressed health concerns over rbGH, specifically for cancer and increased antibiotic resistance. Along with most of the world’s industrialized nations, they have banned its use. Research indicates that cows treated with rbGH differ from normal cows in well-documented ways. Studies have shown that increased rates of bovine lameness, mastitis, reproductive problems, and other health effects result from its use. The possible effects on humans from long-term consumption of products from these animals are not known.

Due to growing consumer demand, companies are removing rbGH from their dairy products across the country. A recent Consumers Union poll [PDF] found that 93% of consumers want labeling of products as rbGH-free.  Dairy farmers are responding to these market signals and more than 230 U.S. hospitals have signed a pledge committing to serve rbGH-free dairy products.

Since Strickland issued this emergency rule, similar measures have been proposed in other states, including Indiana, Vermont, Missouri, Utah, and Kansas. In every instance, they were soundly defeated. Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, in one of her last acts before becoming U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, vetoed a bill calling for dairy labeling rules similar to the one in Ohio.

Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director for the Center for Food Safety thinks the rule is bad for farmers, as it could restrict their ability to inform consumers about rbGH-free products, and may end up forcing them to stop any kind of rbGH-free labeling. “The greatest impact would be seen by small farmers who can’t afford to print multiple versions of their packaging,” he said.

Ohio residents, take action through Food & Water Watch and The Center for Food Safety and let governor Ted Strickland know how you feel about rbGH-free labeling.

The bill passed by the Kansas State Legislature would have required an additional disclaimer on labels for dairy products produced from cows not treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST), a genetically engineered, artificial hormone that induces cows to produce more milk. (For more about this issue, check out this recent post, or the Humane Society’s informative post.)

The Governor’s office sent out a press release late Thursday, explaining why she vetoed the bill:

“…the Bill before me…provides for changes in dairy labeling that could make it more difficult to provide consumers with clear information. The milk labeling provisions negatively impact a dairy producer’s ability to inform consumers that milk is from cows not treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBST).”

“Supporters of the bill claim it’s necessary to protect consumers from false or misleading information. Yet there has been overwhelming opposition by consumer groups, small dairy producers and retailers to this proposed legislation. Therefore, pursuant to Article 2, Section 14 of the Constitution of the State of Kansas, I veto HB 2121.”

Despite this good news, Sebelius’ veto still could be overturned. However, two key legislators told the Associated Press on Friday that supporters of tougher rules for milk labeled as hormone-free probably can’t override her veto of their bill. Both Senate President Steve Morris and Rep. Larry Powell, chairman of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, noted that the bill failed to garner the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto in either chamber when it passed earlier this month.

“The way the votes went, I don’t think we can override it,” Powell said. “I’m not sure we would want to waste the time trying.” The bill also contained other provisions on milk inspections, pesticide regulation and regulation of hog farms. Sebelius told the AP that legislators should approve those in separate legislation after they return Wednesday in their annual spring break. Morris said the issue is the perceived credibility for consumers of a hormone-free label on milk and whether that credibility is deserved. “I don’t think you need to mislead the consumers one way or the other,” Powell said.

“Governor Sebelius clearly recognized that the bill’s provisions on dairy labeling would have made it harder for consumers to get the information they want about the dairy products they consume and would have hindered dairy farmer’s ability to tell consumers that their milk is from cows not treated with rbGH,” said Dr. Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports.

Due to growing consumer demand, companies are removing rbGH from their dairy products across the country. In addition, over 160 hospitals all over the country have pledged to serve rbGH-free products and the past president of the American Medical Association said in a letter to all AMA members that hospitals should serve only milk produced without rbGH. A recent report compiled by the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility found that more than half of the 100 largest dairy processors in the country have gone completely or partially rBGH-free due to consumer demand.

In her veto message, Sebelius cited such opposition, which she described as “overwhelming.”

“There was an outpouring of opposition by consumer groups, small dairy producers and retailers to this proposed legislation,” said Patty Lovera, Assistant Director at Food and Water Watch. “As she ascends to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Governor Sebelius has left a legacy of support for the public interest in Kansas with this veto.”

You can help uphold the governor’s veto here at Food & Water Watch.

Today a broad array of 29 farmers, consumer groups, businesses and other organizations sent a letter to Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, President Obama’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, urging her to veto HR 2121, a bill passed by the Kansas State Legislature last week which would require an additional disclaimer on labels for dairy products produced from cows not treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST), a genetically engineered, artificial hormone that induces cows to produce more milk. (To read more about the problem with rbGH, check out this earlier Civil Eats post.) The bill was sent yesterday to Governor Sebelius, who has ten days to veto it.

“Since the FDA’s controversial decision to approve the use of rbGH, questions have only grown about its safety for humans,” said Dr. Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist for Food Safety for Consumers Union. “HR 2121 interferes with consumers’ right to know what is in their food and how it’s produced and farmers and dairies have the right to tell them.” Consumers Union sent a similar letter to Sebelius urging her to veto the bill.

The required disclaimer would read: “the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined there are no significant differences between milk from cows that receive injections of the artificial hormone and milk from those that do not.” That statement is based on an 18-year-old FDA review; however, FDA’s own publications, as well as subsequent scientific studies have shown that there are significant differences, some of which may affect human health. The Kansas bill also goes against long-established Federal policy as outlined by the FDA in a July 27, 1994 letter to New York Department of Agriculture and Markets: “The bottom line is that a contextual statement is not required…and in no instance is the specific statement ‘No significant difference has been shown…’ required by FDA.”

In addition, the Legislature tacked on the dairy labeling rules of HB 2295 as a rider on HB 2121 without a hearing in the Senate Agriculture Committee. This denied the numerous opponents of labeling restrictions the chance to testify. Even with the lack of proper debate, the bill barely passed the Senate by a 22-15 vote, just two votes short of failing, demonstrating that there is barely a mandate for labeling changes in Kansas.

“As she reviews this bill, and ascends to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, we urge Governor Sebelius to veto this bill, protect the health of Kansas’ citizens, and to leave a legacy of support for the public interest, not special interests,” said Patty Lovera, Assistant Director at Food & Water Watch.

Due to growing consumer demand, companies are removing rbGH from their dairy products across the country. In addition, over 160 hospitals all over the country have pledged to serve rbGH-free products and the past president of the American Medical Association said in a letter to all AMA members that hospitals should serve only milk produced without rbGH.

“Kansas is taking a step in the wrong direction, as more than half of the 100 largest dairy processors in the country have gone partially or completely rbGH-free to satisfy consumer demand,” said Heather Whitehead, True Food Network Director at the Center for Food Safety. “If dairies decide not to label milk as rbGH-free due to these unnecessary labeling requirements, or decide not to sell their products in Kansas, citizens will be denied the chance to make informed choices about what kind of dairy products to buy.”

Local retailers are also concerned about the effects of the labeling requirements. “We hope that Governor Sebelius will veto HB 2121 which could create a financial hardship for the state’s mid-sized and small dairy producers and retailers, and could raise barriers to interstate commerce,” said Devrin Forte, Store Manager at Topeka Natural Foods.

Food & Water Watch and Center for Food Safety both have action alerts so you can tell Governor Sebelius that consumers have the right to know what’s in the milk, and dairies have a right to tell them.

Photo: PapaC1

With the Child Nutrition Act (CNA) set for renewal this year, Food & Water Watch (F&WW) last month launched a School Milk Campaign asking Congress to give schools nationwide the opportunity to buy milk that is free of artificial growth hormones. Their online petition has already generated 8,000 signatures.

CNA authorizes the National School Lunch Program, providing schools with reimbursements for food purchases like fluid milk and supplying schools with surplus foods, like butter, cheese, ground beef and grains. According to the National Milk Producers Federation, nearly 430 million gallons of milk were distributed to schools during the 2005-2006 school year.

Roughly 15 percent of U.S. dairies inject cows with the synthetic growth hormone called rbGH (or recombinant bovine growth hormone) that increases milk production. According to F&WW, it’s possible that at least 84 million gallons of milk from rbGH-treated cows were distributed through the school nutrition program during 2005-2006—or about 1 in 5 pints of milk offered in school cafeterias nationwide.

rbGH has been linked to increased rates of infections in dairy cows, elevated antibiotic use, and unresolved questions about its links to serious human health risks, including cancer. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all 25 members of the European Union have banned the use of rbGH, and the Codex Alimentarius, the United Nations’ main food safety body, twice decided that it could not endorse the safety of rbGH for human health.

Growing consumer concern has brought changes in the marketplace as major dairies and milk producers and retailers, such as Wal-Mart and Kroger, have made a commitment to go rbGH-free. Universities, institutions and hospitals are making the change as well, and schools are the next logical step.

F&WW is working on legislation that will make it easier for schools to purchase milk produced without rBGH. Right now, schools are required to accept the lowest bid on a milk contract that meets the school’s specs and food service buyers often don’t realize that they can specifically request rBGH-free milk in the bid. This legislation will clarify that they have this option. Often times the current choices are not always the most nutritious, as public schools receive just $1.13 per child per lunch in federal funding; some states contribute additional funds, but many do not, leaving school food service directors to “squeeze water from a stone.”

“This is not promoting luxury milk,” said Noelle Ferdon, Senior Organizer for the Food Program at F&WW, which recognizes that many school districts are already cash-strapped. “This is a no-cost administrative change in the CNA that would help schools make choices that respond to the needs of students, parents and communities. rBGH-free milk is now cost competitive in the marketplace in large part because of consumer and retailer preference for this milk.”

Many school districts have been able to procure rbGH-free milk—in fact several school districts have built rbGH-free milk into their nutrition or wellness policies—but many districts don’t know they have the option to specify the type of milk they want to buy. As long as standard competitiveness procedures are followed, F&WW wants school food services to have the option to procure milk from cows not treated with this controversial artificial growth hormone.

“Our children’s health should not be put at risk by their being made to consume rbGH milk at school,” said Ann Cooper, a chef and school food advocate with Lunch Lessons LLC Food Family Farming Foundation.  “Legislation must be put into effect that eliminates artificial hormones and antibiotics from all milk served in school cafeterias all across the country – our chidren’s health depends upon this.”

As for nay-sayers that think there might not be a rbGH-free milk supplier in the district, Ferdon says this hasn’t been an issue as all of the areas have suppliers of rbGH-free milk.

The group has rallied leaders in the environmental, health and food and education movements to write a national coalition letter, which will be presented to Congress on Wednesday, March 11, “National Know Your Milk Day.” That day, supporters can also call their representatives and ask them to include language in the Child Nutrition Act clarifying that schools can purchase rbGH-free milk. In addition, you can also host your own local Day of Action on March 11th to support this effort.

On the heels of Yoplait’s announcement that they’re going rbGH-free, Dannon is now saying that its entire product range in the U.S. will be free of the much criticized dairy cow artificial growth hormone by the end of this year. As reported here, Dannon, like Yoplait, is citing consumer demand, rather than health concerns, for this change in policy.

“This is a response to our market evaluation and consumer preference,” Dannon’s senior director of public relations Michael Neuwirth told DairyReporter.com. Dannon claims to hold about one-third of the market and its shift in policy is a result of the tremendous efforts of every day citizens who demanded that their milk be free of rbGH.

So, it’s surprising then, that the folks in Kansas are moving ahead with eleventh hour legislation tomorrow to restrict “artificial growth hormone-free” and “rbGH-free” dairy labels. This legislation, if passed, would make Kansas the only state to restrict dairy labels in this way. At a time when more and more dairies are going rbGH-free in response to consumer demand, Kansas seems to be moving in the opposite direction.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because this battle was recently fought last year in Kansas. Back then, Monsanto pushed a bill to end this informative labeling, but that legislation died in the Senate Agriculture Committee after considerate consumer opposition. Now proponents have tried to sneak the bill through again.

While the bill does allow for some claims about milk not being produced with artificial growth hormones, it does not allow phrases like “rbGH-Free,” and requires the use of what many consumer, health and environmental groups and dairy producers believe to be a misleading disclaimer on milk labels.

Additionally, this legislation could place a financial burden on small dairy producers and the State of Kansas. The bottom line is that the rules that have been in place for the last 14 years have worked just fine.

If you live in Kansas, Food & Water Watch and the Center for Food Safety both have action alerts so you can tell the Kansas House Ag Committee that consumers have the right to know what’s in the milk, and dairies have a right to tell them.

Photo: Tripping Along

Yoplait yogurt, the 19th largest dairy processor in the country, announced today that by August of this year, all Yoplait branded products will be made with milk that is 100 percent farmer certified to come from cows not treated with rbGH (or recombinant bovine growth hormone) an artificial hormone also known as rbST (recombinant bovine somatotropin).

In an e-mail announcement sent out Friday, Yoplait noted that it’s the first leading yogurt brand to go “rbGH-free,” which may come as a surprise to companies such as Stonyfield, Nancy’s, Cascade Fresh, Brown Cow, and other organic industry leaders, all of which have been in the forefront of the movement to reject the synthetic hormone in milk products.

“It’s an honor to welcome them into the no-rbGH club,” said Gary Hirschberg, the Stonyfield CE-Yo. “Better Yo-Late than Yo-Never.” In 1993, Stonyfield was the first dairy in the U.S. to secure agreements with milk suppliers not to use artificial hormones like rbGH (trade name Posilac) soon after it was introduced.

The use of rbGH has been linked to increased rates of infections in dairy cows, elevated antibiotic use, and unresolved questions about its links to serious human health risks, including cancer. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all 25 members of the European Union have banned the use of rbGH, and the Codex Alimentarius, the United Nations’ main food safety body, twice decided that it could not endorse the safety of rbGH for human health.

In case you can’t recall why U.S. companies have been pumping cows full of this junk for 16 years, just a small reminder that rbGH was brought to us by Monsanto, which has much sway in our government. (For the seminal article on the chemical giant, read the piece in Vanity Fair.) And, in yet another winning decision by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the agency gave its seal of approval, despite serious questions about the safety of rbGH.

According to the Breast Cancer Action (BCA), when rbGH is injected into a cow, that cow’s milk will contain higher amounts of another powerful hormone called insulin growth factor 1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is natural and necessary, but too much of it may cause health problems. Studies have shown that elevated levels of IGF-1 in humans may increase the risk of breast cancer. More research is needed to better understand whether the elevated levels of IGF-1 in milk make their way into our bloodstream. Although it hasn’t yet been proven that the use of rbGH will definitively lead to breast cancer, BCA notes that the current evidence is cause for concern and for action.

Slight problem: Yoplait, owned by General Mills, marketed its yogurt as being healthy for women, and participated in breast cancer awareness projects, including pledging a 10-cent donation to a breast cancer organization for every pink lid consumers mailed back to the company.  Because Yoplait yogurt was made with milk from cows injected with rbGH, there was a contradiction in their message.

Yoplait’s move away from rbGH can be linked in large part to the BCA’s Think Before You Pink campaign—which demands transparency and accountability on the part of companies that align themselves with breast cancer and urges companies to do all they can to ensure their products don’t contribute to the high rates of the disease. BCA uses the term “pinkwashing” to describe companies, like Yoplait, that participated in breast cancer fundraising or “awareness” campaigns but manufactured products that may be linked to the disease.

One of the reasons the Yoplait campaign was successful is due in large part to consumer education efforts by organizations such as the Oregon chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility. “When Yoplait says that they’re dropping rbGH because of consumer demand, they’re not kidding,” said Rick North, PSR’s Project Director for Safe Food, who has been on the frontlines of this effort. “They’ve received thousands of postcards from all over the country opposing rbGH and also letters from hospitals and colleges expressing their displeasure with the hormone. This was not only the right thing for them to do, it was the smart thing.”

As it turns out, Americans don’t want their milk messed with. A recent Consumers Union poll [PDF] revealed that 70 percent of consumers polled are concerned about dairy cows being given synthetic growth hormones and 93 percent of consumers agree that dairies that produce milk and milk products without artificial growth hormones should be allowed to label their products as being free of these hormones.

Consumer demand for rbGH-free dairy led big retailers like Wal-Mart, Krogers, Starbucks, Tillamook, Safeway and Chipotle Restaurants to get on the milk wagon and phase out the hormone in all of their dairy products. California Dairies, Inc., which produces nearly 10 percent of the nation’s milk, went rbGH-free last year. And, by the end of summer 2009, the New England dairy industry will be rbGH-free as well.

Faced with dwindling sales of rbGH, Monsanto tried to thwart informed consumer choice by pressuring the FDA and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to restrict labeling of such products as “rbGH-free.” That didn’t work out too well, so Monsanto and their supporters launched a state-by-state assault attempting to ban or restrict rbGH-free labeling in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, Kansas, Utah, and Missouri. So far, these attempts have not been successful, as dozens of farmers, environmental and consumer groups joined forces to beat them back. Still limping along, a bogus non-profit called American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology (AFACT) was formed last year to join the battle. This “grassroots” group received funding from Monsanto and was formed by Osborne and Barr, a PR firm founded by two ex-Monsanto employees. Seems that AFACT is actually ALIE.

In the meantime, stay tuned and ready for action to make sure your favorite dairy can continue to label their products “rbGH-free”. Be sure to buy rbGH-free milk from one of the aforementioned brands, and even better, buy organic. Click on your state to find a list of rbGH-free dairy brands at Sustainable Table.