Got rBST? Wal-Mart Is Now Being Targeted by the Monsanto Front Groups

crossposted from unbossed

When Wal-Mart decided to go rBST-free last week,  Monsanto knew it was in big trouble. So it's pulling out the big guns.

Yes, when the going gets tough, Monsanto's astroturf groups get going.

If you go over to Wal-Mart's blog, you can see the front groups and their representatives spewing out their talking points. The talking points include that rBST milk production is better for the environment, less costly for the public, is no different than non-rBST-produced milk.  

Yes, indeed, Monsanto has a lot of mouths to say its words, or in the case of blogs, lots of fingers to type its claims.

Last December, I did a piece tracking down front groups,  and including lots of links so you could find out about the "work" they do. Actually, they are all a piece of work.

Among the groups is the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). You can find a number of links about them and their fellow travelers here.  

ACSH has been a regular among the front groups Monsanto turns to.

ACSH also turned up when I tried to track down the truth behind a claim Terry Etherton, Monsanto's man at Penn State, kept making about 3000 studies showing that rBST is safe. I didn't find anywhere near 3000 studies, but I did find ACSH.

So now that Wal-Mart has spurned Monsanto, who does Monsanto call for help? If you said, ACSH, you got it.

Today ACSH's Ruth Kava scolded,  yes, scolded Wal-Mart for giving the public what the public wants. I had thought that this was the way the free market was supposed to work. But I gather when it comes to Monsanto's friends, freedom isn't free. Kava has given Wal-Mart orders to get back in line, the public wishes be damned.  Honestly, I am not making this up. Here's how her rant starts:

It's a pretty sad state of affairs when grocery sellers decide to market their wares by kowtowing to consumer fears. But that's what seems to be happening now. Wal-Mart has decided not to sell milk from cows that have been treated with rBST. . . ..

Silly as it sounds, that is how they plan to make friends with - or bully - Wal-Mart.

March 24, 2008
Milking Consumer Fears
By Ruth Kava, Ph.D., R.D.

It's a pretty sad state of affairs when grocery sellers decide to market their wares by kowtowing to consumer fears. But that's what seems to be happening now. Wal-Mart has decided not to sell milk from cows that have been treated with rBST (recombinant bovine somatotropin, or growth hormone) -- even though the FDA has said more than once that milk from such cows is no different from any other milk. Now the Kroger company is planning to do the same, and in addition the company wants to label the milk as not from rBST-treated cows.

Of course, no one adds BST to milk -- except the cow who needs it in order to make any milk at all. The only thing the additional injected rBST does is maintain the levels of BST at early lactation levels for an extended period -- thus increasing the cow's productivity (see other ACSH examinations of rBST). The fact is that there has never been any substantiated scientific study showing that milk from cows treated with rBST is any different from milk from untreated cows. The hormones are so similar that you can't tell them apart, nor can the FDA.

Who really stands to gain from the sale of this "untreated" milk? Not consumers, surely -- but it certainly keeps the marketers busy and creates the false impression that the companies are looking out for consumers' welfare. If these companies really were concerned, they'd resist the temptation to pander to activist-inspired fears of biotechnology products such as rBST.

Ruth Kava, Ph.D., R.D., is Director of Nutrition at the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com).

If you go over to Wal-Mart's blog where the announcement to go rBST free was made, you will see that the Monsanto minions are at work.

For example, one name is Boyd Schaufelberger. Do a search on his name, and you will find he is a poster-boy farmer for rBST. You'll find him connected with Terry Etherton and with the Center for Global Food Issues , a Monsanto front group. In fact, the CGFI is a front group of the Far Right Hudson Institute.

•  On the issue of cost of milk

  I wrote a diary related to that issue yesterday.

  There is a serious problem with the way milk is being priced, but that is something in the hands of the milk dealers and state and federal regulators. It has nothing to do with rBST or not.

  Yesterday, I included this comment to lay out a bit about milk pricing structures in Pennsylvania.

  Milk, as an important food product, is a commodity whose pricing is regulated. You can see some of that at the MMB site as to the divisions of milk products. You can then see the pricing structures in PA here.

  The state also issues pricing orders. Here is the current one for PA (pdf): OGO A-903A   Order establishing minimum prices and otherwise regulating the classification and marketing of milk purchased from producers. And add to that, here are links to PA regulations on milk.

  As you can see the regulation tends to be of the milk dealers and not of the farmers. In essence, the dealers pick up milk from the farms, process it, and sell it. The dealer then sends a milk check to farmer. This is the process that is regulated, including pricing.

  What has happened is that the dealers are the ones who benefit from this structure and pricing. They also have played an important role in the decline of demand for milk produced with rBST.

  If they pick up milk that has been produced with rBST, they cannot sell any of the milk in that tank as produced without rBST. As a result, they have been refusing to handle the rBST produced milk. This is an issue the rbst using farmers are annoyed about.

  Farmers who do not use rBST are not seeing the higher prices passed through to them from their milk dealers.

  So there is a serious issue that needs to be addressed in terms of milk pricing and the structure of the industry. The problem is that this forum does not seem to be set up to deal with that pricing problem.

  by shirah on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:10:57 AM PDT

  •  Nice work bringing up the issue ....

    Food safety is not just about China!

    by Bronxist on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:22:23 AM PDT

    •  Cool sig line

      and thank you.

      by shirah on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:31:49 AM PDT

      •  Could you please give me some information

        that would lead me to believe that rBST treatment has negative consequences. Sorry to be all reality-based, but fear-mongering is the province of the right wing, or so I thought.

        I am not saying that rBST is okay - I don't know one way or another. I just want to know what the facts are. I was suckered into believing that thimerosal in vaccines might cause autism, and wrote a short diary to that effect, until some smart kossacks showed me the evidence to the contrary.

        by MarkInSanFran on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:40:23 AM PDT

        •  ok, how much pus do you like in your milk?

          rBST makes cows over produce. They get chronic mastitis from over-producing. They are treated with antibiotics for infection. Milk contains antibiotics and pus.

          by mollyd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:48:32 AM PDT

          •  Yes it does- (Milk contains antibiotics and pus.)

            And my Milk (Raw) is the best anyone could hope to drink, and isn't derived from corn or fossil fuels...

            I like clean, Raw, real, whole milk, with good soma and bacteria cell counts, from bovines fed primarily grasses, grains and mollasses, this time of year, and soon, they will be pastuered in Alfalfa, and other exotic field grassses, and the taste of the raw milk will change again, different fats laced with derivatives of the insects the bovine ate, that were on the grasses,  (look up "brix" rating of grassses, read Micheal Pollan, Google and read Sally Fallon...)

            enuf...

            My milk has bugs in the right ratio, and I am never sick, and I will never again have dairy provided by someone who would like to rid any health benefit from dairy, in the name of longer shelf life, or artificial, synthetic, designer injected nutrition...

            by RF on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:12:10 AM PDT

            •  Addendum

              Actually my Milk doesn't have antibiotics.  

              My milk has good and bad micro organisms (probiotics) and I suspect some pus, and would have AntiBiotics if the ladies were being given antibiotics, but none are because none have mastitis, or any other reasons to be given antibiotics.

              The folks who own the ladies use their "output" to fertile their tomatoes and strawberries, not HUMP milk to some mass producer who NEEDS long shelf life to rip consumers off, and destroy all the health benefits of milk...

              by RF on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:38:14 AM PDT

        •  Pus, antibiotics

          But even if it weren't, shouldn't the burden of proof be on the producers to prove it IS safe rather than the other way around? This is food we're talking about.

          by discocarp on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:56:59 AM PDT

        •  fact check

          However, contrary to Hudson, there is a wealth of scientific information on the toxic veterinary effects of rBGH, major differences between rBGH and natural milk, and cancer risks posed by rBGH milk. Revealingly, Hudson uses the term rBST, recombinant Bovine Somatotropin, avoiding any reference to the word "Hormone" in Monsanto's original acronym rBGH.

          Cows hyper-stimulated by repeated rBGH injections are seriously stressed. Such evidence, detailed in confidential Monsanto files submitted to the FDA in 1987, was anonymously leaked to one of us (Epstein) in November 1989. These files revealed widespread pathological lesions, infertility, and chronic mastitis, treated with illegal antibiotics. Acting on this information, in 1990 the House Committee on Government Operations charged "that Monsanto and the FDA have chosen to suppress and manipulate animal health test data-in efforts to approve commercial use" of rBGH. This charge is also consistent with the Committee's 1986 report, "Human Food Safety and the Regulation of Animal Drugs." This concluded that the "FDA has consistently disregarded its responsibility-has repeatedly put what it perceives are interests of veterinarians and the livestock industry ahead of its legal obligation to protect consumers-jeopardizing the health and safety of consumers of meat, milk and poultry."

          By 1994, when FDA approved the use of rBGH under Monsanto's trade name Posilac, the label insert, seen only by dairy farmers, admitted that "its use is associated with increased frequency of use of medication in cows for mastitis," and some 20 other toxic effects. Such information on the Posilac label is clearly inconsistent with Hudson's criticism of "happier cow" claims by organic dairy farmers. http://www.organicconsumers.org/...

          by mollyd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:59:02 AM PDT

          •  see also new york times on panel whitewash

            http://query.nytimes.com/...

            by mollyd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:02:45 AM PDT

        •  Some info about rBGH, reality based

          From Sustainable Table

          FDA approval for rBGH came in 1993, in spite of strong opposition from scientists, farmers and consumers. According to detractors, rBGH was never properly tested. The FDA relied solely on a study done by Monsanto in which rBGH was tested for 90 days on 30 rats. The study was never published, and the FDA stated the results showed no significant problems. But a review by the Canadian health agency on rBGH found the 90 day study showed a significant number of issues which should have triggered a full review by the FDA.x

          By the summer of 1994, the Wisconsin Farmers Union and the National Farmers Union set up a joint hotline for dairy farmers to use when reporting problems with the artificial growth hormones in cattle. One lifelong New York dairy farmer reported losing a quarter of his herd to severe mastitis after beginning rBGH injections. He also reported a drastic drop in production after taking his cows off rBGH; they suddenly produced less milk then they had before going on the drug. A year later, he had to replace 135 of his original 200 cows. Other farmers using rBGH have reported similar problems, in addition to hoof diseases, open sores and cows that died from internal bleeding.xi

          A 1991 report by Rural Vermont revealed serious health problems with the rBGH-injected cows that were part of a Monsanto-financed study at the University of Vermont (UVM). Among the problems was an alarming rise in the number of deformed calves and dramatic increases in mastitis, a painful bacterial infection of the udder which causes inflammation and swelling.xii To treat mastitis outbreaks, the dairy industry has relied on antibiotics. Critics of rBGH point to the subsequent increase in antibiotic use (which contributes to the growing problem of antibiotic resistant bacteria) and inadequacies in the federal government’s testing program for antibiotic residues in milk xiii as further reasons why the hormone should never have been approved.

          Additionally, cows forced to produce unnaturally high quantities of milk will often become malnourished because they lose more nutrients through their milk than they ingest in their feed, xiv and are therefore more susceptible to disease.

          Milk from rBGH-treated cows contains higher levels of IGF-1 (Insulin Growth Factor-1), which has been linked to colon and breast cancer. Even though no direct connection has been made between elevated IGF-1 levels in milk and cancer in humans, scientists have expressed concern.xv

          Faced with mounting evidence to the contrary, the FDA has stubbornly continued to assure consumers that rBGH is safe for cows and humans. In fact, in 1994, the FDA prohibited dairies from claiming there was any difference between milk from rBGH-injected cows and milk produced without the artificial hormone.xvi

          Like I said, check the references (go to the link, check the roman numerals) but the info on cows is what I've heard directly from farmers.

          by the fan man on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:00:37 AM PDT

          •  There's an animal cruelty element involved

            and the use of hormones should be stopped, if only for that reason alone. Can you imagine a human female being forced to continually give milk and endure recurring mastitis like the cows do? How painful it must be.

            by marina on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:15:18 AM PDT

            •  From what farmers have told me, it verges

              on it. Farmers develop a relationship with their herds (they don't view their cows as milk machines)and those who have tried it (that I know) stopped pretty quickly. It caused more problems than it solved.

              by the fan man on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:27:00 AM PDT

            •  There is no good reason to do it, unless you're

              the one producing these hormone cocktails.

              How economical can it be to get each cow to produce more milk if you also have to replace dead/injured cows, future herds are damaged, and you have to buy hormones/antibiotics for the privilege of keeping your business going?

              Wal-Mart is on the right side here.

              by someone else on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:26:51 AM PDT

        •  twin births.

          don't take this one to the bank, but a study released sometime in the last year or two correlated the introduction of rBGH into the US food supply with an increase in the rate of twins.

          http://www.organicconsumers.org/...

          by UntimelyRippd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:57:15 AM PDT

        •  Sure-

          But it will not be information that you expect-

          Google Sally Fallon

          Understand that pasteurization of dairy products DESTROYS microO's YOU need, in about an 80/20 ratio, good to bad buggs-  (You need bugs in you, it is true)

          I get my milk from a jersey farm across the river, and another jersey farm down the road about six miles... I visit the farm(s) when I need milk, cheese, and ICE CREAM-  It is all made with Raw Milk, or real milk, if you will-  I also get all my beef at these local farms whose proteins are derived from the sun.  Most likely, the beef you eat is derived from an oil can, via corn fed to a bovine (WHAT?  A RUMINENT BEING FED CORN!  WHAAAAAT!!!!) fertilized in an Iowa farm field by petrol based fertilizer, not the sun and cover crops for nitrogen enriched soil.

          I know my milk provider, and I inspect their charts for bacteria and soma cell count nearly every visit.

          Your Human Flora is the most important part of your digestive system, and to brush your teeth with poison, or consume ALL of your dairy as 100% pasteurized or ENRICHED or rBST'd or anything like that, or beef proteins and fats are derived from fossil fuels, not the sun,  can very, very, very,  detrimental to your health-

          Learn about alkaline vs acid human metabolic balance in foods, and understand that "value added" in your whole food is an oxymoron; the longer the ingredient list, the more reason to leave it on the shelf.  

          Read Andrew Weil.  

          Read Micheal Pollan

          Learn and live healthy, disease and sickness free for a lifetime, it really is possible, as long as Net Neutrality remains...  IOW, the information is readily available for you to investigate, contrary to the very folks charged with provising your food security...  (FDA)

          by RF on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:04:44 AM PDT

        •  Autism & vaccines: gov't admissions of fault

          Been in the news lately, so while you got burned, unfortunately, you might've been burned while fighting the good fight.

          Example:

          A recent admission by government health officials that childhood vaccines worsened a rare, underlying disorder that ultimately led to autism-like symptoms in a Georgia girl has sparked a new debate among parents and physicians alike as to whether the important vaccinations are responsible for a drastic rise in autism diagnosis over the past two decades.

          The announcement that the government conceded the case and the court document itself are worth a look.

          Keep up the good fight!!

          by martini on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:13:01 AM PDT

          •  yes, the vaccine industrial complex

            is working very hard to shut this down. What we need is an honest government to look in to it.

            I'm sure there will be a lot more to come.

            by Pescadero Bill on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:18:31 AM PDT

          •  And some counterarguments

            As this guest post at Kevin Leitch's Left Brain, Right Brain blog points out, some of the numbers in David Kirby's article just don't add up (and still remain unexplained by Kirby).  For instance:

            But mitochondrial disorders are rare in the general population, affecting some 2-per-10,000 people (or just 0.2%).

            No, 2 / 10,000 * 100 = 0.02%.  But OK, maybe that's just a typo.  Still, it doesn't explain this statistic:

            10% to 20% of all autism cases may involve mitochondrial disorders, which would make them one thousand times more common among people with ASD than the general population.

            Let's see... if 1 in 150 children have autism, as the statistic usually goes, and if a minimum of 10% of autism cases involve mito, then at least (10%)(1/150) = 0.066% of the total population has mito.  That's over three times as much of the general population as Kirby just stated-- and that's completely ignoring any non-autistics with mito!  (So is Kirby then claiming that autism is less prevalent in the general population than is traditionally thought?)

            And that's only the beginning of the questions that science-minded bloggers have had about Kirby's article.  Another guest post on Leitch's blog demonstrates even more holes in Kirby's argument.  And here's an analysis by blogger 'Orac', who's been doing quite a bit of research on the general topic of autism and vaccines over the past several years.

            by codeman38 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:42:11 PM PDT

        •  Those of us in the country

          where there are dairy farms don't need "scientific" evidence. We just have a conversation with our vets, who also work the dairies. It's big business for them, and a lot of profit for their practice, both for the rBGH, and the antibiotics.
          Believe it, and the much maligned "anecdotal evidence" that we country bumpkins can provide.
          Pus weeping out of sores. Antibiotics as a daily routine, both for the rBGH induced problems, or to try to keep them from getting pus filled sores on their udders in the first place. But that's not going so well for them, for all the injection and expense. Once the cow's health deteriorates from forced over production, they develop. For a variety of reasons. Bottom line, weakened immune system. There's the mastitis (scroll down for the pretty pictures), but a variety of other bacterial problems as well. Here's a nice one. Pseudocowpox (false cowpox, milker’s nodule)
          Who cares about a friggin' cow! Hose 'em off, grease 'em up, and clamp those suckers on.
          But as long as the milk you get in the jug is white, who cares?

          by emmasnacker on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:16:47 AM PDT

  •  So Milk $ goes up, Veal $ goes down. n/t

    by cryptochrome on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:43:09 AM PDT

    •  different farm economies, sorry. nt

      by the fan man on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:34:31 AM PDT

  •  A diary-worthy issue in itself. Good job. n/t

    by sxwarren on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:59:35 AM PDT

  •  Monsanto vs Wallmart

    Wow, this will be like Godzilla vs Mothra.

    by opinionated on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:59:56 AM PDT

    •  Walmart will win this one

      My step-father used to work for Stouffer Cookies (of animal cracker fame) and he used to talk about negotiations with Walmart. Basically there are none!

      by f furney on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:09:27 AM PDT

      •  Hmm...

        ...could we actually be rooting for Wal-Mart on this one? The irony is so thick cow magnets will stick to it!

        by JeffW on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:33:35 AM PDT

        •  I Loved The Image

          Of Cow magnets.

          by opinionated on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:48:10 AM PDT

          •  A real device...

            ...for combating ingestion of ferrous metal by cows. They slip them into the first stomach, and the magnet
            traps the metal bits before they can hurt Bossy.

            by JeffW on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:50:58 PM PDT

    •  The upside is that Waldemort has a face.

      Sure, it's a creepy, staring, "smiling" face, but it's a face!  And lots of people know just where their local Walmart is.

      How many people, in contrast, know just what all Monsanto products they buy on a regular basis?

      by martini on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:17:10 AM PDT

  •  that's very interesting and I didn't know that.

    Use the interwebs properly and you can truly learn not one, but several new things every day.

    Okay, so it looks like regardless of anyone's thoughts on using hormones to increase milk production, someone's well-intentioned market regulation scheme is creaking a bit. Is that what I'm reading here?

    by Shaviv on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:54:23 AM PDT

  •  Meant to address this yesterday...

    Even though I hate attaching to Tip Jar...

    Dealers don't pick up milk. They have it delivered and it cost the farmers even more now with gas prices but with the ever consolidation of the big guys closing off the infrastructure we used to have (that ultimately was safer as well)

    From Concentrate
    How food processing got into the hands of a few giant companies
    BY TOM PHILPOTT
    26 Apr 2007

    Two years ago, dairy giant Dean Foods shuttered a milk-processing facility in Wilkesboro, a town at the eastern edge of North Carolina's Appalachian Mountains.

    Dean processes 35 percent of the fluid milk in the U.S. and Canada -- roughly equal to the combined market share of its three biggest rivals combined. In my area of western North Carolina, it processes 100 percent of the fluid milk. Since there were no other USDA-approved processing plants around, the few remaining dairy farmers in the mountains faced a stark choice: pay to have their milk hauled an additional 55 miles to Winston-Salem, where Dean ran another plant, or exit the business.

    ...

    So that's another huge reason farmers are going out of business, along with the government all worried about Dean's stock market showing...

    AP
    USDA Sets Milk Price, Soybeans Soar
    Friday February 22, 4:06 pm ET
    USDA Lowers Price Processors Pay for Milk, Soybeans Rise to Record-High

    NEW YORK (AP) -- Wall Street analysts said Friday Dean Foods Inc. should get a boost from a U.S. Department of Agriculture report that lowered the price the dairy processor pays farmers for milk.

    In the report, released Friday, the USDA set the base price for Class 1 milk at $16.70 per counterweight for March. That represents a 15 percent decline from the February price of $19.68 per counterweight. The base price represents the minimum price processors can pay farmers for fluid milk. The price is largely determined by production levels.

    J.P. Morgan analyst Pablo Zuanic said the news is good for Dean Foods "particularly because the stock has been hit by concerns that milk prices will start to rise."

    That fear, Zuanic said, has driven the stock to new yearly lows in recent weeks. Earlier Friday, the stock hit a new 52-week low of $23.73 before rebounding slightly to rise 6 cents to $23.95 in afternoon trading.

    For the week, the shares fell 2 percent to close at $24.43 Friday.

    Zuanic said for the stock to rise, investors must believe milk prices will continue to fall. He noted that when milk prices were set above $20 per counterweight in the last few months, "earnings at Dean Foods have been clearly hurt," leading to a drop in the stock price.

    ...

    So, dairy farmers have to make do with even less while Dean is busy raising money to buy out those who just can't make it anymore... further consolidating their hold on the market, driving out all competition.

    Dean Milks The Market
    Carl Gutierrez, 02.29.08, 4:30 PM ET

    Dean Foods is hoping a little earnings dilution now well let it skim off the cream of the crop when smaller dairies come up for sale.

    On Friday, shares of Dean Foods (nyse: DF - news - people ) dropped 6.1%, or $1.41, to $21.58, in afternoon trading after it announced it was selling approximately 18.7 million shares in a public offering. The Dallas-based milk producer said the issue, which will increase the number of shares by about 13%, is being made to lower its debt and for future investments and acquisitions. The company said it began 2008 about a year behind its debt reduction expectations due to the "extremely difficult" operating environment of 2007.

    by CSI Bentonville on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:37:23 AM PDT

    •  Thanks, You are a fount of wisdom

      or at least knowledge on all things food.

      by shirah on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:36:20 PM PDT

•  Cheese

  If you want rBST free cheese there are a number of European manufacturers.  My local market has a brand Finlandia which offers a selection of different sliced, pre packed varieties (Swiss, Gouda, Muenster, etc) and they are very reasonably priced.  The nice thing about European (well anywhere but the US & Brazil) is that they can't use rBST, so there is no chance of getting tainted milk.  

  by Hotspur18 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:16:49 AM PDT

  •  Thanks, good to know.

    by irate on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:19:00 AM PDT

  •  It would be nice to have that same certainty

    with our domestic milk products. And consider the cost of transport from afar.

    by shirah on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:31:14 AM PDT

    •  We do

      It's called "Organic"

      by nanobubble on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:29:31 AM PDT

      •  It's tough selling the benefits to other people

        though, when the organic/free-range costs 6 or more times as much...and if they believed in the fallback story on the evils of corporations they would be on your side to begin with!

        Not to say organics are inviable; the case for preventing "rBST-free" or any other labeling is remarkably thin...it makes the case for war in Iraq look like a slam dunk!

        Monsanto and similar corporations are all for the free market...if that free market includes just the right anti-competitive regulations to keep them in the top position.

        by someone else on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:33:04 AM PDT

  •  what about Cabot in Vermont

    This is a cooperative.  Does anyone know if they use rBST free milk for their cheese?

    by bigforkgirl on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:37:30 AM PDT

    •  They do

      Cabot should not be trusted.

      (Actually, any products that are not organic can not be trusted.)

      by nanobubble on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:27:41 AM PDT

      •  Out of curiosity,

        ..., do products that are labeled "organic" merit automatic trust?

        I think it's well-established that you can't trust producers and merchants to police themselves. Just because someone says that he doesn't shoot his cow full of antibiotics doesn't mean that he isn't doing it, he might be lying to boost his profits, after all. And in a market where crooks can get away with it, cheating effectively becomes a necessity.

        Can we trust regulators to actually regulate? My internal Magic Eight Ball is saying "Outlook not so good" based on, well, at least the past eight years of regulatory inactivity.

        You know, what I'd like to see is a dipstick test that will allow any ordinary consumer to test for the presence of things like pesticides, antibiotics, inappropriate hormones, or cell surface antigens of cells that shouldn't be in there, in or on various food items. Just swipe and see if it changes color.

        by Shaviv on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:01:18 AM PDT

        •  No, but

          Definitely more than products NOT labeled organic.

          A certification doesn't end the war, but it shifts the playing field. I'll take that shift any day!

          by nanobubble on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:57:18 AM PDT

  •  What?

    It's banned in Europe

    But how can they afford cheese? We all know we're richer and we all know regulation makes things sooo expensive.

    So how can Europeans possible afford rBGH-free cheese when we clearly can't?

    /snark

    by trillian on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:24:13 AM PDT

  •  Uh no thanks

    I'd rather buy All-American Organic cheese.

    Organic Valley is fantastic.

    http://www.csrwire.com/...

    by nanobubble on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:29:17 AM PDT

  •  Too bad that

    You don't know what they're feeding them, aside from an EU regulation, unless they are certified USDA Organic

    by nanobubble on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:30:32 AM PDT

•  Similarly

  the American Chemistry Council is complaining about  Wal-Mart's putting the squeeze on manufacturers to exclude certain chemicals from their products (sorry, no link).

  It seems the ACC is concerned that Wal-Mart is pandering to baseless fears.

  An interesting dynamic is developing.  Wal-Mart feels the pressure to be perceived as good for the country rather than taking everyone down, so they are doing some progressive things that do not adversely affect their bottom line.

  When push comes to shove, the corporate interests do not always support one another.

  by A Mad Mad World on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:19:01 AM PDT

  •  Very interesting development

    Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

    by shirah on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:30:11 AM PDT

  •  doing some progressive things?

    maybe so - but I'm pretty sure these decisions are still profit driven rather than being grounded in the interests of human well-being

    by grollen on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:20:30 AM PDT

    •  Exactly my point n/t

      by A Mad Mad World on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:23:21 AM PDT

    •  Well, occasionally,

      you might get market phenomena that serve the interests of the general public at the same time that they're serving the interests of merchants and shareholders. It's not impossible.

      The development of 4560-RP into an antipsychotic drug and subsequent marketing, while problematic, also helped to kill the lobotomy fad and was one of the factors that sent Walter Freeman spiraling into self-destruction. That's a public service if ever I thought of one.

      The invention of a cheap-to-build, cheap-to-buy automobile, too, was problematic yet provided general benefit.

      by Shaviv on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:16:10 AM PDT

  •  freedom corporate style

    According to Ruth Kava at the ASCH, our food should not be what consumers want, but rather what Monsanto wants consumers to want.  Thanks Dr. Kava for clearing that up.  

    by eightlivesleft on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:31:07 AM PDT

    •  I wonder how she'd react...

      ...to a shot of Posilac?

      by JeffW on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:35:07 AM PDT

•  important issue-thanks

  I have been following the rise in wheat flour topic.  The cost of wholesale bag of wheat has gone from $11 in 2000 to almost $40 today.

  by TexasTwister on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:21:34 AM PDT

•  I think it was CBC out of Canada did a

  story over the week-end that included Monsanto and some of the problems they are creating.  They showed the cows with mastitis from this drug and it was heart breaking. Also talked about the level of pus in the milk from these cows. This stuff should be banned, Thanks Shirah.

  by Owllwoman on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:25:10 AM PDT

  •  You know how much protein there is

    in pus?

    Jesus, did I just say that out loud? Yuk :-)

    by MarkInSanFran on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:42:34 AM PDT

    •  Pus, Yum! and protein to boot! n/t

      by shirah on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:43:50 AM PDT

      •  Pus, it's what's for dinner

        Okay, I stop now. OTOH, this thread aids dieting - as in, not eating :-)

        by MarkInSanFran on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:47:30 AM PDT

        •  Pus

          The other white meat

          by stillman on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:37:10 AM PDT

    •  If you were a women and looked at those

      poor cows udders, it would make you want to cry. Ugh!

      by Owllwoman on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:58:56 AM PDT

•  thank-you for a real diary

  This is the only rec. diary worth reading this am.

  by bigforkgirl on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:35:02 AM PDT

  •  On the REC List! Oh shoot!

    I have to hit the road for a trip in a few minutes!

    I'll have to let you all play nice while I'm gone.

    by shirah on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:45:24 AM PDT

    •  We'll get you now, my pretty

      and your little cow, too.

      by MarkInSanFran on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:48:19 AM PDT

•  So what do the studies say re:

  milk w/ the synthetic hormone and milk w/out?

  by real world chick on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:36:57 AM PDT

  •  What is the difference btw rBST + non-rBST milk

    This is a long, long discussion and I have to leave for a work trip in a couple minutes, but let me give you a very quick summary.

    First, the question should be: Who has the burden of proving a product is safe? The answer so far has been that we assume safety until proven wrong . . . with disastrous effects. I personally am someone who has suffered the impact of this backwards thinking. So I am acutely sensitive to this problem.

    Milk is a product that children tend to consume. Any bad consequences will be with them for a long time, and they may have greater sensitivity. For their sakes, we should be especially cautious.

    Second, there are a mix of studies, many funded by Monsanto.

    Third, the issue seems to have stopped being looked into by scientists in the mid-1990s. A lot has changed in the last 15 years, including the sensitivity of our tests and our deeper knowledge of biological functions.

    Fourth, the studies tended to look at whether anything difference could be found in the milk of cows treated with rBST or not. It looked basically only for the existence of rBST in milk. Some looked at whether the increased use of antibiotics in rBST treated cows was passed into milk. We now know and suspect that other problems, such as the increased levels of IGF-1 may be serious. IGF-1 is being linked with increased problems, such as cancer.

    Some suspect that the explosion of childhood diabetes, asthma, and other illness may be linked to the increased us of rBST.

    Fifth, at the time the FDA OK'd the sale of rBST produced milk, it was packed with Monsanto executives who were in the revolving door cycle. At Monsanto before the decision was made - at the FDA when it was made - back at Monsanto afterwards.

    Others may be able to add more information, but I have got to hit the road.

    by shirah on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:55:00 AM PDT

    •  products cannot be proven safe

      they can only be shown to not be associated with risk.

      I am not siding with Monsanto, chemicals or hormones. But I am a science fan. Please see this diary over the weekend for a more thorough discussion of risk and safety, and this comment from a toxicologist.

      It is not possible to prove that thiomersal [substitute whatever] is completely safe-epidemiology can only quantify a risk, not prove its absence.

      as far as hearesay and anecdotes:

      Some suspect that the explosion of childhood diabetes, asthma, and other illness may be linked to the increased us of rBST.

      Well, some suspect that those against modern factory farming are anti-progress, and anti-science, and that activism causes warts and will make you go blind. That's, of course, nonsense. Concerns are real and appropriate. But both are opinion statements devoid of fact.

      I am not asking for you to move to the dark side. I am asking for more rigor and scientific evidence in the arguments.

      by DemFromCT on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:10:41 AM PDT

      •  Weird to be on Monsanto's side, ain't it?

        I mean, yeah, big corporation, known to be evil, all that... but in this particular debate they seem to be right. It's VERY strange.

        All that said, if Wal-Mart's customers are asking for rBST-free milk, why shouldn't Wal-Mart give it to them? Pressuring the retailer is exactly the wrong thing to do here, although I understand why they're doing it: there's just no way they'll ever convince anybody that rBST isn't going to turn babies into squid, because, well, it's MONSANTO.

        Weird, weird, weird, the whole situation.

        by mjfgates on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:40:34 AM PDT

        •  I think rBST is pretty demonstrably bad for cows

          I'm not sure all the peeple claims can be substantiated (definitely more studies called for if there is doubt or if it's all industry sponsored) but Wal-Mart (weird being on Wal-Mart's side) is right to offer choice.

          by DemFromCT on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:43:22 AM PDT

        •  thank you grollen for this one

          "there are no studies showing any difference between recombinant (BST) hormone and the cow's own...blah,blah,blah."  

          Ask the farmer whose cows live shorter lives and have to be replaced sooner. ask about the use of antibiotics to treat the complications of mastitis.

          All that is a goody for the producer and consumer,just so Monsanto can sell its product.

          A surplus of hormone (not degraded or deactivated as per that Canadian finding)in the circulation and its probable effect on stimulating cancer cell growth and differentiation....where is the study on rhat one?  Will Monsanto or the FDA fund that one?

          by Pete Rock on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:22:39 AM PDT

          •  you can't do a study with presupposing

            the outcome.

            its probable effect on stimulating cancer cell growth and differentiation..

            while we are probably on the same side of the issue, I need to call into question sloppy thinking.

            by DemFromCT on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:15:53 AM PDT

            •  Well, you can have a hypothesis

              But your experiment should definitely have a control ;)

              I'm thinking back to high school Scientific Method...

              by nanobubble on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:51:26 AM PDT

            •  Do cells in an excessive hormone milieu

              turn cancerous? Do excess levels of hormones create problems for mammals?

              I should have qualified the "probably" with a cautious "possibly".  The influence of hormones of certain types is well known. What is not well known in rBST is the long term effects, 10 or 20 years or longer.

              BTW, didn't DES (diethylstilbestrol) create problems for daughters of women taking it and didn't it take some years to realize those problems?  That's just one of MANY parallels.

              Monsanto bet hundreds of millions of $$ on being the giant milker of the rBST world. The dominant player.  It has tried to do this in other areas such as heirloom seeds/genetic modifications and even plastic bottles kingpin (which it lost the title to Dupont and Eastman and others: wiki acrylonitrile plastic drink bottles,1970's).

               That was a craptacular 470 million dollar gamble that collapsed when cyanide was detected leaching out of their "pet" plastic  and scared their biggest customer into bailing out of the project.

              by Pete Rock on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:57:44 AM PDT

        •  They might seem to be right, but

          You would have to not give a shit about the cows, and trust clinical trials conducted by folks funded by Monsanto.

          (I replied to your reply to my more recent comment along this line)

          Cheers

          by nanobubble on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:50:17 AM PDT

      •  since rBGH cannot be proven safe,

        perhaps monsanto ought not to be allowed to assert that it is safe.

        by UntimelyRippd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:02:57 AM PDT

        •  studies to this point show it's safe

          or some such language, I suppose, would be better.

          As long as consumers have a choice to go organic, I'd be less concerned about how Monsanto frames it and more concerned about offering choices. Let the vaunted market push for beter safety studies (and better products).

          by DemFromCT on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:12:51 AM PDT

          •  the problem with the way monsanto frames it,

            is that their frame gives them the upper hand in the labeling disputes.

            if the assumption is that the stuff is not safe (and what good reason do we have to think that it is?), then the question is not whether folks should be allowed to label milk as rBGH-free -- which would be a given -- but rather whether folks should be required to label their rBGH milk as such.

            by UntimelyRippd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:17:57 PM PDT

        •  Define "safe", right

          They probably should be allowed to say "There is no known health risk", because that's true.

          What we need is more independent research. I've got an idea: let's try to get legislators to put a couple of billion dollars aside to send veterans to school (the modern GI Bill educational benefit frankly sucks and needs updating anyway), and at the same time offer more grants for epidemiology and toxicology research. Send vets to school, create some more jobs for educated people, thus helping out anyone in the sciences, doubly benefiting veterans who have a shot at doing cool and useful research as well as "merely" getting an advanced education, and benefit the public at large because more educated people is better, more study of public health issues is better, and people being happier with the way their taxpayer dollars are spent is better.

          It's politically bulletproof, too. Who's going to vote against letting vets go to school on the Federal dime? It's not like they haven't already paid with blood, sweat and tears.

          by Shaviv on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:22:30 AM PDT

          •  i'm guessing at least 41 GOP and Blue Dog

            dems would stonewall such legislation. why am i guessing this? because ... they are. the revised GI Bill is currently dead in the water, to the frustration of guys like Jim Webb. it gets diaried here regularly.

            by UntimelyRippd on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 05:13:28 PM PDT

      •  You are correct

        I was writing in haste - but might have made the same error anyway. Thanks for the correction.

        by shirah on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:56:26 AM PDT

      •  Giving a pass to Monsanto?

        I am asking for more rigor and scientific evidence in the arguments.

        Why not more rigor and scientific evidence in the original studies prior to approval?

        Why is the onus on non-profits and poorly funded true consumer groups to disprove what seems to be nothing more rigorous than stuffing pockets and getting Monsanto's people on at the FDA and USDA?

        The FDA relied solely on a study done by Monsanto in which rBGH was tested for 90 days on 30 rats. The study was never published, and the FDA stated the results showed no significant problems. But a review by the Canadian health agency on rBGH found the 90 day study showed a significant number of issues which should have triggered a full review by the FDA.

        What you suggesting isn't about science but more about obstinance.

        ~~~~

        Something is safe until those with no money can prove otherwise? With rigor and science... until then those are basically off the table.

        ?

        by CSI Bentonville on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:07:28 PM PDT

        •  hardly

          nor is it a pass to Monsanto.

          Why not more rigor and scientific evidence in the original studies prior to approval?

          What the Canadians said is 'more data needed'. Can't disagree. Want to withhold approval pending more studies? Sensible. Claiming harm based on available data?  Show the data or don't make the claim.

          But you still don't understand what I said. You cannot prove "safe".  You can never prove 'safe'. You need to wrap your head around that. It isn't a matter of how much money you have. You can only demonstrate absence of risk. If there is no demonstrable risk, it is assumed safe. If data comes out to change that demonstrable risk, you change the rules and recommendations.

          The above implies a fair and open system of scientific method applied to the questions. You don't get that with industry-funded studies, hence the challenge to show the studies are reproducible. But it doesn't change the concept.

          by DemFromCT on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:36:35 PM PDT

          •  Hmmm...

            I do understand what you said about safe and I am capable of wrapping my head around it... having done that already... kind of find those statements a bit provoking...

            I'm thinking perhaps you're not understanding what I'm saying...

            Why do we need to be more sensible, have more rigor and scientific evidence than was used to approve? Seems a standard was set yet those who come at us with we need to be more this and that have no problem it seems accepting Monsanto's findings because the FDA said it was okay even though there's all kinds of improprieties with the FDA including that a sitting member of the Supreme Court turned down cases involving the company he used to lawyer for.

            I think there's plenty of question to require more study and from both impartial and biased in favor of the absence of the hormone since Monsanto is the one who provided the cherry-picked studies used for approval.

            Not only does Monsanto have oodles more money than those who would question this hormone but our tax money is being used to protect them.

            Instead the studies from Monsanto should perhaps only be the first step and I believe all studies they undertake should be registered with some agency that observes them and doesn't allow the tossing of those that don't fit what Monsanto wants.

            ~~~~

            It's rather easy to show no demonstrable risk if none is ever looked for. Rather tricky those words on the disclaimers.

            by CSI Bentonville on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:09:40 PM PDT

            •  in other words you and i want the same thing

              we want the FDA and other fed agencies to do their job (what a concept!) and not be packed with industry shills. More likely to happen in a D administration, btw. But it's all part of rebuilding public health infrastructure and making sure that health reform goes deeper than what kind of insurance we get offered.

              PS Don't complain about "provoking" after suggesting I'm giving a pass to Monsanto. For that matter, Wal-Mart isn't suddenly Ben and Jerry's, either. ;-P

              by DemFromCT on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:54:06 PM PDT

              •  I'll complain all I want -- phfffft!

                I didn't say "you" were giving a pass to Monsanto. My point was that they get a pass on that idea that those, like us here, have to come up with rigorous scientific evidence to get them off the market when I don't think they should have been on the market to begin with.

                Especially not Monsanto! They have a horrendous track record from Agent Orange to PCBs. They make money and then dare people to sue for damages done.

                The way it works is we are the Guinea pigs but they aren't being rigorous about watching us for the effects even though there's been numerous issues since we've been signed up with uninformed consent for this study.

                However, the government is fully aware hormones have effects as they pursue baseball players.

                And just for the record, in case my name didn't give it away, I don't think much of Wal-Mart either.

                But as far as Ben & Jerry's? They are Unilever now. Not all that impressed with them either.

                by CSI Bentonville on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:15:22 PM PDT

                •  LOL

                  point taken.

                  by DemFromCT on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:41:26 PM PDT