Kansas Dept. of Agriculture looking to stop labelling of milk without rBGH

Labeling is important, even labeling what a product "doesn't have" is important. It's important to have scrutiny of this type because it could deceive consumers that the use of such-and-such a substance is somehow potentially harmful. Such labeling also implies that all competetors products not containing such the same labeling, contain that substance. Which might not be the case.

The real debate should be about the safety of rBGH in human cows. If it gets into the milk, how much of it, and what it would mean for safety if it does.

Maybe there could be special laws in place that allow anti-rBGH labeling to have a special status?? Since the labeling of dairy products is heavily regulated (because its food and people think that its important food labeling be regulated).

Disclosure: I am not a milk drinker. Though I have a background in ranching and farming.

I can't believe this bull continues to happen. We the public demand and deserve the right to know what we are consuming and how it has been produced. That is not too much to ask for.

I've noticed that ingredients for cleaners and food products are getting more vague and non-existent. Plus, getting restaurants to label calories and trans fat content is a continual fight throughout the country. It is common sense to know what you put in or put on your body.

I'm done with milk. Thanks janforgore for your passion about this.

Unfortunately it is an issue, and one that demands our attention.

Consumers have a right to know. This should not even be an issue. For the industry not to label the product is criminal.

Nurses for labelling.

every batch testing is the only way. enforcing that would be costly and diffcult.

Kansas Agriculture Spokesperson Lisa Taylor just received my message regarding rBGH. I am sending this out to all other e-mails so kindly provided here by onechance.

"As a concerned, aware, and informed consumer, I am writing to you today to state my total disapproval and outrage with any attempt to consider forcing farmers to be unable to label their milk rBGH free without the FDA qualifier. Research has already shown that rBGH contributes to mastitis in cows, which is a painful infection of the mammary glands. That in and of itself is animal abuse. Also, rBGH increases IGF-1 in the milk which is a hormone that stimulates cancer cell growth. It is beyond my comprehension how state and federal governments and agencies can continually try to make consumers believe that there is no difference between milk with rBGH and without it when there clearly is. Infected milk surely is different from non infected milk.

Europe also voted in the 1990s to ban the use of rBGH, and also to label their foods if they contain genetically modified ingredients. Why is it so hard in America to honor the Democracy we say we uphold? Labelling milk without rBGH as such is a constitutional right of those doing so. Consumers also have the right to know what they are consuming. Therefore, should this law take effect in your state or in any other be prepared to see a boycott of milk in general. I will no longer eat or drink any product that is genetically altered by Monsanto or any other chemical company telling me it is safe when it clearly is not. Your concern must first be for the consumer, not the profits of those misleading them.
Thank you"

If the FDA requires labeling then the state will have to comply. My understanding is that Obama will institute policies to bring this about. It would be a relief to see everything that is purchased has all of the information needed to make healthier and greener choices.

there are laws. test frequency and allowed amounts are determined that's probably why the hormone free labeling was discontinued. states and federal laws are different i'm not sure how it is deteremined who has the final word in each state. the point i was making was that there are unavoidable chemicals that occur natually so testing has to be an ongoing.
.

ok...i understand some fukkers are trying to make a pretty penny, but what about their consumers who die...what happens when they don't have anyone else to sell to?!
I think this should be written in whatever the US call it...an ammendment or something (I'm not American so forgive me) There should be a severe punishment for those who lie in their labels or screw with hormones in our foods. I know in Canada, there is a severe punishment for false advertising, but i guess the US haven't put this law into play yet?...or ever?

it was known in the 70's that birthcontrol hormones are not biodegradable and thus in our ground water. nothing is hormone free, plants even make hormones.and be sure you find out if you are soy sensitive before you over do soy milk. since peanuts were tabled soy is in everything so you may have developed sensitivity to soy. moderation. cow milk IS for calves.

DOWN WITH CRUELTY TO ANIMALS !!! Eating whole leaf fresh spinach will give you more calcium than
mindlessly buying milk from abused cows. It's the media propaganda that keeps the commercial machine ruining these animals lives. We're flooded with buy milk TV ads
to unload the mass produced milk, only to keep this vicious cycle going downward until mastitus occurrs in these poor defenseless creatures. ENOUGH !!! Get a conscience already.

you're a homepage hero! // your story is on the current.com homepage

congratulations, frimer!

an item that you submitted to current has gained enough momentum to appear on the US homepage. it was posted on the homepage at Jan 12, 2009 1:15:44 PM. check it out!
feel free to send us your thoughts at feedback [at] current.com, or if you have questions, send them to support [at] current.com.
best,
the online community team

I apologize to JanForgore for using her news to DENOUNCE what CURRENT is doing.I dare CURRENT TO REPLY TO MY POST! WHY WAS IT REMOVED FROM FRONT PAGE???

How greedy and stupid can these industry people be, they're torturing cows to poison us.

I LOVE milk, but after this... I'm going soy. I'm sacrificing my taste for the cows!

Labeling is now becoming the next hurdle to conquer so that consumers will more easily be able to decide which products to purchase based on the processes, ingredients, point of origin & most importantly - whether or not they’re organic & fair-trade. Again, activists at all levels & consumers must prove that “the emperor’s not wearing any clothes” again when corporate & gov’t mishandling of & failure to disclose essential safety warnings.

Lobbyists for certain ecologically problematic industries that suck, like Monsanto & Dow, continue to be a thorn in the consumers side by hiding potentially important info concerning serious health problems by consuming or using their products or services to you or the world. From pesticides to food additives, unnatural chemicals have been allowed to enter the food supply under the guise of healthier ways to do things – and make a ton of money.

If you’re able to raise any of your own food – do it, no matter how much -or join an organic farm co-op, you can start taking the necessary steps to insure your food source is as wholesome as your local area is able to provide. Local shopping also reduces massive transportation costs by conserving energy & reducing Co2 emissions.

pennsylvania recently passed a law that you are not allowed to label any milk as "hormone free." it was a law that was passed because the lobbying efforts of big corporate farming . and it absolutely sickens me.

I read a very interesting article on organic milk. If you do not open the carton, it will probably last for 6 months because of the ultra-pasturization, plus the stuff lasts 3 and 4 times longer than the other.

Go figure, is this part of their master plan to kill off the mass population? Here's the Missouri dept of Agricultures website, click on "contact us."

http://www.mda.mo.gov/

Have you all tried Soy Milk?

It's good. It's good for you. It doesn't support the horrible treatment of cows and their calves.

Milk is for calves, not people.

Oh how I hate Monsanto, let me count the ways.

isnt this a federal issue? Who can i write to in my state of Pa?

Soy is delicious. I watched a video of a dairy farm. Those utters looked like they touched the ground!! This is not normal. The poor cows can hardly walk. I remember how bad mine hurt after a baby so these Cows must be in horrible pain! Not to mention the letter that I will send now. Thanks.

Here are some good email addresses:

ksag@kda.ks.gov, constantine.cotsoradis@kda.ks.gov, jessica.bowser@kda.ks.gov, lindsey.douglas@kda.ks.gov, davidh.starkey@kda.ks.gov, lisa.taylor@kda.ks.gov, erik.wisner@kda.ks.gov

Here's my letter if you want to use some or all of it:

Subject: PLEASE DO NOT stop labelling of milk without rBGH

Body: We as consumers have a right to know if our milk is laced with chemicals.
If you stop the labeling, I'll stop drinking milk, along with a whole LOT of other people.

Please do you part to help this industry thrive by keeping it open and honest for us consumers.

It's our body and we have a right to know what goes into it.

Thank you.
Sincerely,

Bastards. Writing them NOW.

Link to Kansas Dept. Of Agriculture.

Milk & Cancer: rBGH,IGF-1, And Cancer Risk

From the article: And look at how they describe people who simply want disclosure as " anti-biotech." What media garbage.
____________-

Anti-biotech forces turned out in Kansas on Tuesday to argue against a state plan that would limit how dairy products free from artificial hormones can be labeled.

The Kansas Department of Agriculture held its final hearing on the matter Tuesday morning, considering a regulation that would ban dairy product labels from stating the product as "rBST free." The law would take effect in January 2010.

In addition to banning "rBST-free" claims, the rule would require that labels declaring products to have been derived from cows not supplemented with the growth hormone to carry companion disclaimers saying "the FDA has determined that no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBST-supplemented and non-rBST-supplemented cows."

The move comes at a time when consumer and retailer opposition to injecting dairy cows with added growth hormones is on the rise.

Recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) is a synthetic growth hormone injected into cows to increase their milk production, that some fear harm to animal and human health, including links to cancer.

Biotech backers have been fighting back, arguing that artificial hormones help cows produce more milk, do not create health problems for the animals or humans and argue that labels making a distinction needlessly confuse consumers when there is no discernible difference in products derived from cows that receive the hormones and those that do not.

"We simply want labels to not be misleading," said Kansas Agriculture Department spokeswoman Lisa Taylor

But opponents claim there are human and animal health risks associated with the artificial growth hormones and they say consumers have the right to know about the products they buy.

"This would make a truthful claim illegal and violate the first amendment," said Consumers Union senior scientist Michael Hansen, who testified at the Kansas hearing Tuesday.

A coalition of more than 90 groups representing dairy farmers, consumers groups, farm, agricultural and environmental organizations, food processors and retailers submitted a letter to Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius to oppose the new rules.

The move by Kansas comes after Ohio was sued over a similar measure this summer. A ruling in that case is still pending.

St. Louis-based Monsanto Co, a leading developer of biotech crops, had been the sole producer of the artificial hormone supplement, which it branded as Posilac. The supplement is produced through recombinant DNA technology.

The company began selling FDA-approved Posilac in 1994 as a tool for boosting milk production in cows but sold the unit in October to Eli Lilly and Co for $300 million.