PA Ag Secretary imposes milk-labeling ban

Governor Rendell asks for a delay

By TOM KANE

HARRISBURG, PA - Consumers want it, but Secretary of Agriculture Dennis Wolff doesn’t.

On October 24, Wolff released a state prohibition on labeling milk cartons with the statement: “Hormone Free.” Pennsylvania is the only state where milk containers cannot contain this statement. The prohibition started a flurry of protests from consumer groups, dairy co-ops and dairy farmers.

The hormone, rBST, which is manufactured by the Monsanto Company under the name Posilac, is an artificial hormone that dairy farmers have used to increase the production of a cow’s milk by around 25 percent. Increasingly, milk customers don’t like it and won’t purchase milk that does not have the hormone-free label. In fact, Starbucks has shifted its position on the matter. Originally, it supported the ban but has recently demanded that the milk it purchases have that label. Other retailers are following suit.

Governor Rendell’s office has asked the Agriculture Department not to implement the ban until it has time to study its implications, according to Chuck Ardo, the governor’s press secretary.

Wolff is calling the labeling “absence labeling,” meaning that the labels tell consumers what isn’t in a product rather than what is.

“The label confuses the customers,” Wolff said. He argues that cows produce the hormone naturally and that there is not a scientific method to test whether the artificial hormone was used or not. The label suggests that milk that does not contain the label is somehow inferior or even dangerous to your health.

A former dairy farmer, Wolff said that he decided to look into the issue after he received calls from farmers complaining that they were being forced to stop using the growth hormone if they wanted to continue selling their milk to certain dairies. He said his office had received many calls from confused customers.

According to an article that appeared in The New York Times on November 11, Wolff’s office “could not provide surveys or research showing that consumers were confused by the issue, and was unable to come up with even one name of a consumer who complained.”

“This is, pure and simple, a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution,” said John Bunting, a dairy farmer and agriculture writer. “It’s an example of Monsanto having a surrogate to do their work.”

Monsanto, a mega-company of multiple products, went to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which refused to issue a ban, and then turned to Secretary Wolff who did their bidding in Pennsylvania, Bunting said.

“There are a large number of consumer groups who are against the ban,” said Irene Lin, policy analyst for the National Family Farm Coalition. “We have been against the use of the hormone for a number of years. We see Secretary Wolff’s action as an encroachment on free speech.”

Not all are against the ban

Efforts to label certain milk as “rBST free” are not consumer inspired, but rather a move by marketers to put different types of milk in the stores in order to gain premium pricing in some cases, according to Terry Etherton, head of the dairy science department at Penn State University. “This helps explain why we are increasingly seeing three types of milk in stores: conventional, rBST free and organic,” he said.

“All milk is equally safe for consumers,” he said. “Milk from cows supplemented with rBST is the same as milk from non-supplemented cows.”

“I think the ban is a good thing,” said Dave Williams of the Wayne/Pike Farm Bureau. “It will start a direction that will come up with some answers. I hear from one side and then I hear from the other side. I want to see the truth come out.”

“Our milk is of the highest quality,” said Ed Pruss of the Penn State Extension Office in Wayne County. “The hormone is FDA approved. I think those who oppose it are shooting themselves in the foot. [The ban] is an attempt to bring people into the new science. We may lose some business for a while, but in the long run, it’s in the best interest of all.”

The ban, which also prevents the use of labels that claim no antibiotics and no pesticides, takes effect on January 1, 2008.