Bowing to pressure from consumer advocates, Pennsylvania officials have dropped plans to bar farmers from revealing whether or not milk hails from hormone-enhanced cows. The state's agriculture department on Thursday issued new guidelines that allow dairies to label milk so that customers know if it was produced from cows pumped with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) also known as recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST).

The move comes less than two weeks before a February 1 ban was set to take effect that would have barred dairies in the Keystone State from slapping certain labels on milk products, including "from cows not treated with growth hormone rBST'' and "free of artificial growth hormones."

''This is a victory for free speech, free markets, sustainable farming and the consumer's right to know," Michael Hansen, a senior scientist with the Consumers Union (CU), said about the state's about-face. "Consumers increasingly want to know more about how their food is produced and, particularly, whether it is produced in a natural and sustainable manner. There is no justification for prohibiting information about rBGH use on a milk label.''

He added that the state should be applauded for "realizing that its initial regulation prohibiting such labeling was flawed and for reversing its position.''

The fabricated hormone, marketed by agricultural giant Monsanto, is a synthetic version of a natural one found in cows and is designed to boost their milk output by a gallon or more daily. Consumers in recent years have increasingly gone organic, seeking brands of milk from dairies that nix artificial hormones. According to Consumers Union, use of the faux growth agent has been declining in recent years, dipping from 22.3 percent of all U.S. dairy cows in 2002 to 17.2 percent last year.

The Food and Drug Administration has ruled that the synthetic hormone is safe, but not all experts agree. The CU and other health advocates in this country and abroad are wary of its potential effects on humans, and its use is prohibited in Canada and the European Union.

Many farmers in Pennsylvania and other states have vowed not to use rBGH in their milk products, a claim which in some cases fetches higher prices. The new rules will allow them to continue advertising their fare as free of artificial hormones, but requires them to document their claims--a safeguard applauded by consumer advocates. (Dairies are barred from labeling milk as containing no growth hormones, because cows produce some naturally.)

Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, was among a coalition of some 65 organizations that sent a letter to Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell protesting the proposed label ban. In a statement released Thursday, he said "The public has a right to complete information about how the milk they buy is produced."

The coalition is currently fighting similar bans that are being mulled by other states, including Washington State, Missouri and Ohio.

12 Comments

1. 1. Notmilkman 01:41 AM 1/19/08

   Et Tu, Scientific American?
   
   Where has all the science gone, long time lasting?
   This is an issue that should have been written
   about with scientific wisdom, not misinformed
   scare tactics.
   
   Fact: There is no rbGH in milk from cows which
   have been injected with the genetically engineered
   bovine growth hormone. That hormone works on the
   cow's brain and the protein hormone rapidly is
   broken down.
   
   Fact: All cow's milk contains the naturally
   occurring bovine growth hormone.
   
   Fact: All cow's milk contains a more powerful
   growth hormone called insulin-like growth factor
   (IGF-I).
   
   Fact: Milk from cows injected with rbGH contains
   increased amounts of bGH and IGF-I.
   
   Fact: Scientific American should get their collective
   scientific facts straight. They could begin here:
   
   http://www.notmilk.com/b.html
   
   Robert Cohen
   i4crob@earthlink.net

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. ildenizen 02:42 PM 1/19/08

   The real story has once again failed to be reported. What we want to know is why the Pennsylvania legislature even considered this in the first place? Who and how were they pressured?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Ivan Thomson 04:18 PM 1/19/08

   I am horrified that a government would even consider not allowing people to know what is in its food regardless of who says what is safe. To me this is not a safety issue, it is an issue of people's right to know. They put vitamin, minerals and calories on the labels....why do they bother with that? So why not bother with organic information?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. sampablokuper 06:15 PM 1/19/08

   Phew, that was dangerously close to being a disaster for freedom of speech, freedom of diet, and freedom of consumer and farming ethics.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. David E. Connolly, Jr. 11:54 AM 1/21/08

   This shows very clearly the influence of lobbyists, in direct opposition to what is best for the other 99.9% of us, that don't make money killing other people, be it with cigarettes, or car fumes, or nasty chemicals in our food.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. Neuropharmacologist 12:05 PM 1/21/08

   I'm so grateful to the CU for their successful action here. I wrote to my Pennsylvania legislator, newly elected Bryan Lentz (and full of promises to be responsive to his constituents). Lentz refused to discuss the issue. Clearly, one suspects moneyed interest groups, riding roughshod over the 1st amendment rights, had been successful in buying the votes.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. youarewhatyoueat 01:32 PM 1/21/08

   This is an obvious good step but I still want labeling to show me how far the food I buy has had to travel.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. Right to Know 03:56 PM 1/21/08

   ...but still the United States bans the "no OGM" product stickers like they use in Europe and the rest of the world. "Land of the Free..." Not.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. Neuropharmacologist 02:29 PM 1/22/08

   I don't find that there was anything fear-inspiring in the Scientific American article.

    The arguments that you cite are reasonable considerations for forming a hypothesis whether or not rBST is likely to be harmful.  But the scientific method involves testing such a hypothesis - experimentally, empirically.  The real problem is that such epidemiological testing has not been carried out, and steps are being taken by Monsanto to ensure that such testing will never be possible to carry out.

   As an analogy, I could cite a number of facts why cigarette smoking is unlikely to cause cancer.  Indeed, we still do not know the details of how cigarette smoking causes cancer.

    Personally, I buy milk and drink it and don't worry about the rBST.  However, the legal precedent created by not needing to disclose how our food is made is extremely dangerous.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

10. 10. Parapraxis Rex 08:23 PM 1/22/08

    I agree with everything you have said except I don't drink milk... so kudos.

     To anyone else arguing about this article's merit, I would like to cite that cow's milk is actually for baby cows... believe it or not. The fact that it has extra growth hormone is just a side reason why it is unnatural to drink. I could list many other reasons why even organic, artificial hormone and antibiotic-free milk is not natural or good for ya... but I am sure to be plumetted with arguments.

     

    So, let the people know what's in their food. It's their right. If you don't care what's in yours, good for you. But, the rest of us will be checking labels. 

      

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

11. 11. Victor Lund 03:31 PM 1/24/08

    this whole issue seems completely backwards to me. In Europe or Canada, producers of foods containing hormones are required to notify consumers on their packaging.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

12. 12. Daddy Warbucks 08:30 AM 5/3/09

    Two things;
    1. This is the 'land of the free'. If people want to eat "Frankenfoods" that's their right.
    2. If people want to eat foods that were designed to support health and wellness, that's their right.
    
    Healthy competition will prove that organic is better. Here's just one example; “The performance of organic and conventional cropping systems in an extreme climate year”, by Don Lotter, Rita Seidel, and Bill Liebhardt. http://newfarm.rodaleinstitute.org/depts/NFfield_trials/1103/droughtresearch.shtml
    
    I think it's great that Obama et al are pushing "Green" right now. It will help seperate fact from $$fiction.
    Just maybe, one day Monsanto executives will have a chance to consult to Federal prison populations from the inside.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this