Monsanto’s attack on no-BGH labels
March 12, 2008
Monsanto, the maker of recombinant bovine growth hormone (scientific name, recombinant bovine somatotropin or rBST; trade name, Posilac), is embarked on a national state-by-state campaign to get legislatures to rule that food products cannot be labeled that they are rBGH-free or rBST-free. In his weekend column, The Feed, Andrew Martin details how Monsanto has organized its very own “grass-roots” group, Afact, to campaign on the company’s behalf. As Martin puts it, “consumer demand for more natural products…has certainly interfered with Monsanto’s business plan for Posilac.” As I discuss in my book, Safe Food, Monsanto’s aggressive stance (in this and so many other issues that concern its products) has elicited much suspicion of its motives and of genetically modified foods in general. In 1994, Monsanto worked hard to convince the FDA that GM foods did not have to be labeled as such. Now, this company has only itself to blame for consumer resistance to its products.
I find Monsanto’s line ridiculous: they say that because their milk doesn’t test positive for hormones, that when other companies (usually small) advertise “rBGH-free” that they are unlawfully scaring consumers.
But a lot of companies differentiate their products by advertising their unique method of production, from “hand-made” to “organic” to “Fair Trade,” “Grass-Fed” and “Made In The USA.”
I find their line of reasoning weak and dangerous. It’s too bad so many state legislators are in their pockets.
Comment by Fentry — March 13, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
Afact. Hm. Sounds like another “Center For Consumer Freedom.”
If this is true:
“… the F.D.A. maintains that there is no significant difference between milk from cows that are treated and from those that are not.”
Then why can companies selling rBST-free milk get more money for it? (And not pass that profit on to farmers?)
My knee-jerk reaction is to defend the label, the absence claim. But now I’m not so sure. I mean, is rBST-free milk still from a factory-farmed cow? Maybe we can get rid of the claim, as Afact wants. Then people who are able and willing to pay more money for a healthier or greener milk product can buy organic (perhaps from a less factory-farmed cow). And we can just assume all other milk was from rBST-treated cows.
Comment by Bix — March 14, 2008 @ 6:29 am
I really don’t think it is a great thing that the statement:
“the F.D.A. maintains that there is no significant difference between milk from cows that are treated and from those that are not.”
is on cartons of milk sold in schools for elementary (and older) children to see everyday. Even though the milk is labeled as being rBST-free. If they’re declaring it equal, will rBST milk soon be allowed in schools?
Comment by Daniel Ithaca,NY — March 14, 2008 @ 11:18 am
[…] attack on no-BGH labels – March 12, 2008 “Monsanto, the maker of recombinant bovine growth hormone (scientific name, recombinant bovine somatotropin or rBST; trade name, Posilac), is embarked on a […]
Pingback by William Clinton & Monsanto – a Team for Mutual Profit « Dandelion Salad — April 19, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
[…] “Monsanto, the maker of recombinant bovine growth hormone (scientific name, recombinant bovine somatotropin or rBST; trade name, Posilac), is embarked on a national state-by-state campaign to get legislatures to rule that food products cannot be labeled that they are rBGH-free or rBST-free. In his weekend column, The Feed, Andrew Martin details how Monsanto has organized its very own “grass-roots” group, Afact, to campaign on the company’s behalf. As Martin puts it, “consumer demand for more natural products…has certainly interfered with Monsanto’s business plan for Posilac.” As I discuss in my book, Safe Food, Monsanto’s aggressive stance (in this and so many other issues that concern its products) has elicited much suspicion of its motives and of genetically modified foods in general. In 1994, Monsanto worked hard to convince the FDA that GM foods did not have to be labeled as such. Now, this company has only itself to blame for consumer resistance to its products.” (Marion Nestle) […]
Pingback by Bill Clinton and Monsanto – a Team for Mutual Profit « Dissent Mag — April 28, 2008 @ 10:39 am
[…] What to Eat ” Monsantos attack on no-BGH labels […]
Pingback by Baby name meaning and origin for Bix — February 28, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
[…] of the BGH, sued. Last I heard they won, taking away consumer’s right to know what was used. What to Eat Monsantos attack on no-BGH labels Monsanto is also to thank for pushing GM foods into our grocery stores but suing so they can’t be […]
Pingback by What are the Top 5 Cancer-Causing Food? — July 26, 2009 @ 11:08 am