The past two days I've been hearing that the state is requiring some milk producers to cease labeling their milk as free of hormones. I don't really have time to research it this week. Does anyone who is better informed than me want to fill us in on what's going on?
The news bites I heard were on WITF 89.5 fm.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This was a letter sent out earlier today by Brian Snyder, Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture (PASA). He is encouraging everyone concerned about milk labeling to contact their legislators immediately and let your voices be heard.
---------------------------
Christmas Comes Early for Monsanto
As you busily prepare for the holidays this year, you may (or may not) be comforted to discover that
buying food for such seasonal celebrations will become easier in 2008, at least in Pennsylvania.
That’s because the Rendell Administration, through its Department of Agriculture (PDA), has decided to prohibit the use of labels on food that threaten to leave you overwhelmed with
information and hopelessly confused about which choices to make.
Beginning with dairy products on January 1, 2008, it will be illegal to advertise on a label that the
milk, cheese, yogurt, butter or whatever has been produced without the use of synthetic hormones,
unnecessary antibiotics, pesticides or any other “compound or substance” that might tend to indicate the superiority of one version of the product over another.
But before you jump for joy given how much easier your life will become, you should realize that this whole show of bravado on the part of our leaders is really aimed for now at protecting us from
information about the use of just one product in particular – the Monsanto-produced artificial growth
hormone for dairy cows, more commonly known as rBGH or rBST.
And we really can’t give all the credit to the bureaucrats in Harrisburg either, because a huge assist in this food system power play must be awarded to the Dairy and Animal Science department at Penn State University, where department head Terry Etherton has become the chief scientific
spokesperson in support of this crackdown, both here in Pennsylvania and in other states as well.
News of this monumental decision has already been carried in some of our nation’s largest and most
respected newspapers, and is now spreading across the blogosphere like ice cream in the light of a hot summer’s day. It has certainly made for interesting early-winter reading as emails arrive from across the country with subject lines like “Pennsylvania, what are you doing?” or “We must unite to defeat this scourge!”
Obviously, not everyone is grasping the positive intent of this latest PDA initiative. In fact, hardly
anyone is expressing holiday cheer about it, save for those who might expect an invitation to the
Monsanto Christmas party this year.
There are darn good reasons for people to be concerned too. The first casualty goes to freedom of
speech and the pride many farmers feel in advertising right on their labels the positive production
choices they have made. This freedom should be equally available to farmers who might wish to
advertise “Artificial hormones used in producing this product” as to those who disavow such
substances.
The second loss is to consumer information and choice, a right we cannot afford to take for granted
these days. It’s really only due to the fact that consumers were choosing milk labeled “rBST-free” or “Produced without synthetic hormones” at such alarming rates that Mon-Santa’s elves felt they had to step in anyway.
Let’s not forget the plight of the cows in all of this as well – with higher rates of udder infection
(mastitis) and shortened lifespan brought on by such performance enhancing drugs, they have been
reduced to the status of disposable raw materials in this industrial production process. It’s as though
the humble cow is now considered by some to be a bottleneck or barrier to higher production quotas.
But the biggest loss of all associated with this poorly conceived and shortsighted decision is to our society in general. As good research is beginning to show, many of the choices made in modern
agriculture over the last three or four decades has had the concomitant effect of vastly increasing yields while also slowly degrading the nutritional density of farm products. The result is that eaters in America are often faced with the need to consume more calories in order to acquire the vitamins and minerals their bodies crave – a virtual formula for the obesity epidemic we’re now experiencing.
It might be a little hard on us parents as well, especially as we explain to our children why Barry
Bonds might go to jail for lying about use of performance enhancing drugs while the owners of
Bovine Bessie are required by law to keep such information in the dark. Don’t we have enough
hypocrisy in our society to interpret for them already?
If any of this seems to you just a bad dream, think again. The past year has challenged the officially
reinforced confidentiality of our industrial food system in ways not seen since Upton Sinclair wrote
The Jungle a century ago. Naturally, the system has begun to fight back.
Perhaps it’s time for all of us to insist that food never again be adulterated in ways only intended to line the pockets of industry captains while putting more good stewards of the land out of business
forever.
Brian Snyder, Executive Director
Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture (PASA), P.O. Box 419, Millheim PA 16854
www.pasafarming.org, 814-349-9856.
November 20, 2007
Here's a copy of the letter we sent in response to the change in labeling laws.
Governor Edward G. Rendell
225 Main Capitol Building
Harrisburg, PA 17102
November 28, 2007
Dear Governor Rendell,
I’m writing to you this evening, because I recently learned that the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture intends to outlaw the use of labels on dairy products indicating whether or not they were produced with the use of hormones, antibiotics, or pesticides. May I ask what the purpose of such a restriction would be and whose interests does it serve? The regulation certainly does not serve the interests of the consumers or small farmers. On the other hand, such a restriction clearly favors the makers of the antibiotics, hormones, and other chemicals – especially Monsanto.
My family purchases dairy products from a few local farms specifically because they do not use hormones or antibiotics in their herds. We believe that the widespread use of hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, and herbicides are methods that artificially boost production in the short-term while compromising the quality of the food; the health of people who eat the food; and the health of livestock, farm, and surrounding environment. We are glad that we found the farms we support before this rule took effect, and we will continue letting our neighbors know where they can find healthy, chemical-free, local dairy products.
I’m sorry that your administration has decided to protect the profits of large agribusiness over the free speech of your constituents and our right to know what is in the products we eat. Many small farmers, who are being pushed out of business by the large companies that the commonwealth favors, depend on niche markets such as the organic market for their livelihoods. Your decision seems contrary to many of your other initiatives related to sustainable energy projects in the commonwealth. I hope that you will decide to reverse your decision. Agricultural independence and the flourishing of the truly small, family farms are equally important to our future as energy independence, clean air, and clean waters.
Sincerely,
Andrew and Elisabeth Smeltz
Post a Comment