Absence labeling injurious, unfair
Pennsylvania Farm Bureau supports the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture's recent action related to the misleading labeling of milk sold in the state. The issue of milk labeling was recently spotlighted in an article in the Nov. 18 edition of the York Daily Record (“The rbST war heats up”).
By convening a non-partial group of dieticians, consumers and food industry representatives to examine and recommend a proper course of action on the matter, Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff went the extra mile to ensure a fair and accurate assessment of the situation.
To comment on this letter, click on “Comments” below
Today it is more and more likely to find labels that contain claims that cannot be verified, or wrongly imply that their product is safer than others. For consumers, such labeling is confusing, misleading and also degrades low income families who must choose between a perceived ‘dangerous’ or more expensive ‘safe’ product. The practice is called “absence labeling.”
Labels with claims implying that one product is safer than another without any supporting scientific evidence also are injurious to competing processors and retailers, and unfair to farmers. Labels on milk with blazing claims of "antibiotic free," "pesticide free" and "no artificial growth hormones" imply that other milk possibly contains antibiotics, pesticides and artificial hormones, when in fact it does not. It’s revealing that a disclaimer to such statements might be placed elsewhere on the label, but always in very fine print.
When confronted with food labels of such nature, Pennsylvania’s farmers encourage consumers to ask themselves a fundamental question. Namely, does this help inform your purchasing decision, or is it more about gaining a greater share of the market?
Carl T. Shaffer
President
Pennsylvania Farm Bureau
Mr Shaffer, you hit on a good point. Limited income families have it tough enough No need to deal with confusing labels whose only purpose is to gain a marketing advantage.
The bst thing has been around for over 10 years, and now they (Rutter's) got "religion!"
In my opinion, corporate responsibility is to offer choice, let the consumer decide. Wegman's, Weis, etc do just that.
I have a closing thought for all of you who purchase organic, cage free, natural, hormone free, etc.....if you donate $ to local food banks,what do you think they buy with it? Doubt it is what you profess. So you are a hypocrite unless you take a cartful of your chosen foodstuffs directly to them.
Absence labels are more than simply "confusing" in the case of rBSH, they are fraudulent by suggesting that milk from cows who receive the substance is different from cows who don't. That suggestion is demonstrably false because rBST cows' milk is chemically indistinguishable from any other milk, having no trace of rBST or any other unique substance. It's all BS marketing designed to mislead people who don't know the science.
I agree that it could be confusing or frustrating for low-income families, but not more so than advertising for highly priced ice creams, breads, etc. that implying they are healthier. Truthful advertising MUST be allowed or we cannot have a free society.
Some folks just don't like the ideas of genetic engineering, chemical stimulation, and things of that nature, whether there currently is a scientifically traceable difference or not. Let the consumers decide.
I am a strong supporter of keeping rbgh free labeling for the following reasons.
1) rbgh injections make cows sick. This is undisputed. The warning label that comes with Posilac lists the potential side effects. Scientific research in this century has shown Posilac injected cows have increased instances of mastitis, lameness and fertility problems.
I am not interested in supporting trauma to cows simply to produce more milk for an already glutted market.
2) rbgh induced milk does contain more IGF-1, an insulin like growth factor. See the scientific literature not the pr put out by Monsanto. IGF-1 has been associated with breast and prostate cancer. I believe that there can be no more important consumer right than reducing cancer risks as the person/family deems appropriate.
THOSE TWO FACTORS ARE THE REASON THAT THE UNITED STATES IS ONE OF ONLY THREE INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES THAT *****DOES NOT BAN**** THE USE OF rBGH.
3) A consumer has the right to know how a product was produced as well as its potential personal and public health consequences.
4) Monsanto, the sole producer of rbgh, has a dismal history of deception, bribery and harassment. I boycott Monsanto products whenever possible. As an American citizen I see that as my right.