"The single purpose of anti-BST activists in asking for labeling with respect to BST is to reinforce an erroneous impression of risk to the consumer"

Even if the final product is exactly the same, the issue, for me and many others, is, what kind of industry do we want to support.

If two toys were identical, but one was made by Chinese prison labor and the other by well-paid workers, shouldn't you have the right to see which was which so you could choose to support one type of industry or the other?

Well, at least you're honest enough to say that consumers shouldn't be treated like adults and given the information.

Chances are better a cow receives antibiotics if she is treated with Posilac.

To this day rBST remains banned in Canada, Japan, the EU, Australia, New Zealand and all but 19, mostly nonindustrialized, countries though Monsanto says that's because of "an oversupply of dairy products" not safety concerns. [8]

In fact the more you learn about rBST, the more you wonder why anyone would think it is safe.

Take the unpublished rat study Monsanto supplied to the FDA for drug approval. Monsanto claimed no rats absorbed rBST in their blood stream--hence there was no need for long term toxicity studies--but Canadian scientists who obtained the study discovered that 20% to 30% of the rats did absorb rBST with biggest concentrations in (you guess it) the prostate. There were also thyroid cysts. [9]

This inspired Vermont Senators Patrick Leahy and James Jeffords to ask the U.S. Health and Human Services Department to formally investigate the FDA's approval of rBST in 1998. [9] Especially since the FDA employee in charge of labeling guidelines for rBST, Michael R. Taylor, had been a Monsanto vice president. And the FDA researcher charged with evaluating rBST levels in milk had done the same work at Monsanto. [10]

Based on that and the cronyism rampant in the government when it comes to Monsanto I want to be able to choose whether to ingest the products or not.

FDA approval process

Some critics of Aspartame use have criticized its approval process specifically; they note that the head of the FDA, Jere E. Goyan, was removed from his post on the first day of Ronald Reagan's presidency (1981). Previously, Goyan refused to approve the legalization of aspartame, due to the studies documenting increase of cancers in rats. Reagan appointed Arthur Hayes, MD, (FDA Commissioner 1981-1983) Commissioner, who legalized aspartame a year later. Reagan supporter Donald Rumsfeld was president and later CEO of G. D. Searle & Company from 1977 to 1985.[77][78] In November 1983 Hayes was under fire for accepting corporate gifts. He quit and joined Searle's public-relations firm as senior medical advisor. Searle lawyer Robert B. Shapiro, renamed aspartame NutraSweet. Monsanto purchased Searle. Rumsfeld received a $12 million bonus. Shapiro later became Monsanto president.

Several members of the FDA board left their jobs after stevia (aspartame's main competitor then) was banned in 1991. They were all hired at Nutrasweet in higher paying jobs, according to national records. Dr. Michael Friedman quit the FDA when Jane Henney was selected to become the permanent FDA commissioner (1999). Friedman elected to sign with G. D. Searle as a senior vice president at a purported $500,000 a year. He later accepted a position with Monsanto.

Political controversy

The stevia plant may be grown legally in most countries, although some countries restrict or ban its use as a sweetener.

In 1991, at the request of an anonymous complaint, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeled stevia as an "unsafe food additive" and restricted its import. The FDA's stated reason was "toxicological information on stevia is inadequate to demonstrate its safety."[32] This ruling was controversial, as stevia proponents pointed out that this designation violated the FDA's own guidelines under which any natural substance used prior to 1958 with no reported adverse effects should be generally recognized as safe (GRAS).

Stevia occurs naturally, requiring no patent to produce it. As a consequence, since the import ban in 1991, marketers and consumers of stevia have shared a belief that the FDA acted in response to industry pressure.[11] Arizona congressman Jon Kyl, for example, called the FDA action against stevia "a restraint of trade to benefit the artificial sweetener industry."[33] Citing privacy issues, the FDA has not revealed the source of the original complaint in its responses to requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act.[11]

The FDA requires proof of safety before recognizing a food additive as safe. A similar burden of proof is required for the FDA to ban a substance or label it unsafe. Nevertheless, stevia remained banned until after the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act forced the FDA in 1995 to revise its stance to permit stevia to be used as a dietary supplement, although not as a food additive — a position that stevia proponents regard as contradictory because it simultaneously labels stevia as safe and unsafe, depending on how it is sold.[34]

See, in the United Corporations of America, it's not "Food Safety" but who you know and what you own.

Coke, Cargill team up on new sweetener
Thu May 31, 2007 5:41pm EDT
By Martinne Geller

Related News
^{Cargill recalls 1 mln pounds ground beef in U.S.}

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Coca-Cola Co. (KO.N: Quote, Profile, Research) said on Thursday it has teamed up with Cargill Inc. CARG.UL, an agribusiness and commodity trading group, to market a new calorie-free natural sweetener aimed at health-conscious consumers.

The Atlanta-based beverage company has filed 24 patent applications for the product, tentatively named rebiana, and would have exclusive rights to develop and sell rebiana in beverages, spokeswoman Kari Bjorhus told Reuters.

Privately held Cargill would use the sweetener -- made from a South American herb called stevia -- in food products, and handle the growing of the shrub, which is native to Paraguay, Bjorhus said.

That is, unless a warning is required for health or safety reasons (like cigarettes), no one should have to list such safe things as you mentioned.  (And yet, i like ingredient labels... from most to least in order is nice.)

So Monsanto should not be required to label their milk as BST, whether the cows got penicillan (though I might like to know if they got it when sick, as my grandpa did to his few cows, or in constant megadoses), or whether their cows ate Lucerne.  Such labels should not be required.  But to restrict voluntary labels?  Labels that add non-practical, emotional concerns to the buying equation?  Labels like "Made in the USA", for example?

And if someone wants to label their superior milk "Now includes BST" or their product "Now made in China."  Well, if they could find an ad campaign that would sell it, they would.  And it would be all over their labels.

If a farmer can create the image, illusory or not, that a product labeled "BST free" or "Made in USA" is superior then that's the nature of advertising.  These big companies should be quite familiar with the game by now.  Now they want to cry "Bullshit!  It's not really better!"  Well, what goes around comes around.  Advertising has been established as A-OK by American standards.  Ditto free speech, and only more so for a company's own friggin' label.

Again, no one is asking Monsanto et al. to say anything.  Monsanto wants to censor the BST free farmer.