Cancéropôle Lyon Rhône-Alpes

To Pennsylvania Milk Producers:

The October grassroots producer meeting held in Schaefferstown, PA to examine the so-called “rbST-free” issue is getting some results, and it looks like we can keep this technology available to us if we take action now.

A few local milk processors like Wengert’s Dairy and Clover Farms have decided to back off earlier demands that producers sign a no-rbST affidavit. And we are hearing that other co-ops and processors like Maryland Virginia Cooperative have decided not to pursue rbST free milk. They need the milk and there is no sustained consumer demand for this new rbST free category.

Since that meeting, attended by about 100 producers and industry professionals, we have had a chance to compare some retail prices and learn what kinds of “commissions” producers are getting. The bottom line is that the milk processors stand to make a big profit from the new milk category, and producers are getting peanuts.

For example, in Philadelphia, regular 2 % milk is selling for $3.89 per gallon. Organic milk is selling for $3.99 per half gallon. We could not find any rbST-free milk. However, in the Northern New Jersey and New York City market, regular 1% milk is $3.05/gallon while 1% rbST free milk is $3.40 – 4.09/gallon. Organic milk is selling for $5.29/gallon. For every 8 cents a retailer charges for a gallon of milk it is equal to $1/cwt. Thus, a $3 gallon of milk sells for $37.5 /cwt.

Depending on the locale, retailers are making $5 to $13 (40 cents premium /8 cents = $5 profit) per cwt on rbST free milk, but dairy producers are only receiving 3 to 12 cents per hundredweight or .6-2.4% of the premium, if that, for giving up the right to use this technology. Even 75 cents only represents 10-15% of the premium. There have even been some examples of processors trying to get the milk from non-treated cows without paying any premium at all.

It remains to be seen if consumers will respond to this new category. If they do respond and we all have given up our right to use the technology, the “rbST free” category will become commodity milk, and the price will come down. Any premiums you are getting will go away, and we as dairymen will have lost an important tool that makes us more efficient and profitable.

Consumers have not been demanding this milk (see http://blogs.das.psu.edu/tetherton/?p=109), but big companies hope to create a demand by scaring shoppers. It’s a loser for consumers, and there is nothing in this for the hard-working dairyman, not in the short run and certainly not in the long run when this new category is a commodity. We need to defend our right to use safe and effective technologies and practices on our farms. And we must resist any campaign that makes consumers think milk is not safe.

All dairy farmers need to challenge the coops, processors and retailers that create milk labels and/or advertisements on controversial products such as rbST. Milk labeling and advertising should clear-up fears, not stir-up fears; eliminate confusion, not create confusion; promote dairy, not demote dairy. Our promotion dollars are lost if dairymen allow retailers and bottlers to cannibalize the final products that the customers purchase.

We as dairymen can put a stop to this by ensuring that food companies are unable to provide enough “rbST-free” milk to continue this marketing charade. So, if you have signed an affidavit, we urge you to contact your processor or coop and tell them that you are rescinding your signature. Tell them this “no-rbST” trend is unfair to you, and to consumers and that you want no part of it.

As dairymen our reputation is on the line. Dairymen should be unified in a resounding proclamation. We must demand truth from our food companies. They are part of our team and the consumer deserves honesty in labeling and advertising. We have always produced a product that is totally safe, wholesome and healthy to the consumer and we will continue too. For this reason, we as dairymen should and will not be part of any false advertising or marketing tactics that create false perceptions that the milk consumers’ purchase is not safe, wholesome and healthy.

Sincerely,

Dan Brandt
Annville, PA

Tom Krall
Schaefferstown, PA

Nelson Martin
Robesonia, PA

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Terry Etherton

On December 28, 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft risk assessment (RA) on whether cloning affects food safety or animal health, and whether food products from livestock should be sold for consumption. The draft, “A Risk-Based Approach to Evaluate Animal Clones and Their Progeny – DRAFT” (visit http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CloneRiskAssessment.htm), presents the FDA’s position. The risk assessment concludes that “….the available data has not identified any food consumption risks or subtle hazards in healthy clones of cattle, swine, or goats. Thus, edible products from healthy clones that meet existing requirements for meat and milk in commerce pose no increased food consumption risk(s) relative to comparable products from sexually-derived animals.”

The risk assessment employed a “weight of evidence” approach for drawing conclusions regarding risks to animal health and for consumption of food products from clones and their progeny. This approach consisted of four steps:

There is a long and distinguished history in the U.S. of assessing the safety of foods introduced into the marketplace. FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) has the regulatory responsibility for considering the safety of animals and their progeny that are produced as a result of cloning. In addition, CVM is responsible for the regulatory review conducted to determine the safety of food products (e.g., meat, milk, eggs) from animals developed through cloning.

Assessment of food safety involves an integrated multi-disciplinary approach that incorporates molecular biology, protein chemistry and biochemistry, food chemistry, nutritional sciences and toxicology. Consumers should understand and appreciate that absolute safety is not the objective with respect to any approach used to evaluate complex substances such as food. The standard that has been adopted by FDA is that the food under evaluation should be as safe as an appropriate counterpart that has a long history of safe use. It must be emphasized that it is the food product itself, rather the biotechnology process used to generate cloned animals, that is the focus of the evaluation.

Despite the impressive scientific evidence that food from cloned animals is safe, opponents of cloning and animal biotechnology have again “cranked up” their campaign to scare consumers as a strategy to encourage consumers to avoid food from cloned animals. Arthur Caplan, Ph.D, in an MSNBC piece, put this campaign in perspective: “All of this nonsense took a toll. It made Americans forget that cloning is nothing more than artificially creating twins. It made us forget that every drop of wine we drink comes from cloned grapes. It made us ignore the fact that if you want to worry about what you are eating you would be better off fretting over whether the FDA has enough inspectors on the job at meat plants looking for salmonella and E. coli than whether your dinner started off as a clone.”

The release of the draft RA by the FDA is a long-awaited step in the process FDA will follow to formally release regulatory guidance about the entry of edible products from cloned farm animals in the food system. I believe that cloning will benefit animal agriculture (see my previous Blog on cloning at http://blogs.das.psu.edu/tetherton/?p=31). I am hopeful that the regulatory review process will move ahead in a timely manner to enable livestock producers and biotechnology companies to sell cloned animals in the marketplace. Cloned animals will be of value because of their increased genetic merit to provide healthy and nutritious meat and milk. Cloned animals will also increase food production, improve disease resistance, and enhance reproductive efficiency. An additional benefit is that cloning can be used to protect endangered species.

The next step in the ongoing review process is for the FDA to seek comments from the public about the draft risk assessment. Draft Risk Assessment documents will be available for public comment for 90 days (due by Wednesday, March 28, 2007). I encourage readers to provide your comments on these documents. Comments should be sent to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with Docket number 2003N-0573. Comments may also be submitted electronically via the Internet at http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/oc/dockets/comments/commentdocket.cfm.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

To Pennsylvania Milk Producers:

The October grassroots producer meeting held in Schaefferstown, PA to examine the so-called “rbST-free” issue is getting some results, and it looks like we can keep this technology available to us if we take action now.

A few local milk processors like Wengert’s Dairy and Clover Farms have decided to back off earlier demands that producers sign a no-rbST affidavit. And we are hearing that other co-ops and processors like Maryland Virginia Cooperative have decided not to pursue rbST free milk. They need the milk and there is no sustained consumer demand for this new rbST free category.

Since that meeting, attended by about 100 producers and industry professionals, we have had a chance to compare some retail prices and learn what kinds of “commissions” producers are getting. The bottom line is that the milk processors stand to make a big profit from the new milk category, and producers are getting peanuts.

For example, in Philadelphia, regular 2 % milk is selling for $3.89 per gallon. Organic milk is selling for $3.99 per half gallon. We could not find any rbST-free milk. However, in the Northern New Jersey and New York City market, regular 1% milk is $3.05/gallon while 1% rbSTfree milk is $3.40 – 4.09/gallon. Organic milk is selling for $5.29/gallon. For every 8 cents a retailer charges for a gallon of milk it is equal to $1/cwt. Thus, a $3 gallon of milk sells for $37.5 /cwt.

Depending on the locale, retailers are making $5 to $13 (40 cents premium /8 cents = $5 profit) per cwt on rbST free milk, but dairy producers are only receiving 3 to 12 cents per hundredweight or .6-2.4% of the premium, if that, for giving up the right to use this technology. Even 75 cents only represents 10-15% of the premium. There have even been some examples of processors trying to get the milk from non-treated cows without paying any premium at all.

It remains to be seen if consumers will respond to this new category. If they do respond and we all have given up our right to use the technology, the “rbST free” category will become commodity milk, and the price will come down. Any premiums you are getting will go away, and we as dairymen will have lost an important tool that makes us more efficient and profitable.

Consumers have not been demanding this milk (see http://blogs.das.psu.edu/tetherton/?p=109), but big companies hope to create a demand by scaring shoppers. It’s a loser for consumers, and there is nothing in this for the hard-working dairyman, not in the short run and certainly not in the long run when this new category is a commodity. We need to defend our right to use safe and effective technologies and practices on our farms. And we must resist any campaign that makes consumers think milk is not safe.

All dairy farmers need to challenge the coops, processors and retailers that create milk labels and/or advertisements on controversial products such as rbST. Milk labeling and advertising should clear-up fears, not stir-up fears; eliminate confusion, not create confusion; promote dairy, not demote dairy. Our promotion dollars are lost if dairymen allow retailers and bottlers to cannibalize the final products that the customers purchase.

We as dairymen can put a stop to this by ensuring that food companies are unable to provide enough “rbST-free” milk to continue this marketing charade. So, if you have signed an affidavit, we urge you to contact your processor or coop and tell them that you are rescinding your signature. Tell them this “no-rbST” trend is unfair to you, and to consumers and that you want no part of it.

As dairymen our reputation is on the line. Dairymen should be unified in a resounding proclamation. We must demand truth from our food companies. They are part of our team and the consumer deserves honesty in labeling and advertising. We have always produced a product that is totally safe, wholesome and healthy to the consumer and we will continue too. For this reason, we as dairymen should and will not be part of any false advertising or marketing tactics that create false perceptions that the milk consumers’ purchase is not safe, wholesome and healthy.

Sincerely,

Dan Brandt
Annville, PA

Tom Krall
Schaefferstown, PA

Nelson Martin
Robesonia, PA

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Terry Etherton

On December 28, 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft risk assessment (RA) on whether cloning affects food safety or animal health, and whether food products from livestock should be sold for consumption. The draft, “A Risk-Based Approach to Evaluate Animal Clones and Their Progeny – DRAFT” (visit http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CloneRiskAssessment.htm), presents the FDA’s position. The risk assessment concludes that “….the available data has not identified any food consumption risks or subtle hazards in healthy clones of cattle, swine, or goats. Thus, edible products from healthy clones that meet existing requirements for meat and milk in commerce pose no increased food consumption risk(s) relative to comparable products from sexually-derived animals.”

The risk assessment employed a “weight of evidence” approach for drawing conclusions regarding risks to animal health and for consumption of food products from clones and their progeny. This approach consisted of four steps:

There is a long and distinguished history in the U.S. of assessing the safety of foods introduced into the marketplace. FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) has the regulatory responsibility for considering the safety of animals and their progeny that are produced as a result of cloning. In addition, CVM is responsible for the regulatory review conducted to determine the safety of food products (e.g., meat, milk, eggs) from animals developed through cloning.

Assessment of food safety involves an integrated multi-disciplinary approach that incorporates molecular biology, protein chemistry and biochemistry, food chemistry, nutritional sciences and toxicology. Consumers should understand and appreciate that absolute safety is not the objective with respect to any approach used to evaluate complex substances such as food. The standard that has been adopted by FDA is that the food under evaluation should be as safe as an appropriate counterpart that has a long history of safe use. It must be emphasized that it is the food product itself, rather the biotechnology process used to generate cloned animals, that is the focus of the evaluation.

Despite the impressive scientific evidence that food from cloned animals is safe, opponents of cloning and animal biotechnology have again “cranked up” their campaign to scare consumers as a strategy to encourage consumers to avoid food from cloned animals. Arthur Caplan, Ph.D, in an MSNBC piece, put this campaign in perspective: “All of this nonsense took a toll. It made Americans forget that cloning is nothing more than artificially creating twins. It made us forget that every drop of wine we drink comes from cloned grapes. It made us ignore the fact that if you want to worry about what you are eating you would be better off fretting over whether the FDA has enough inspectors on the job at meat plants looking for salmonella and E. coli than whether your dinner started off as a clone.”

The release of the draft RA by the FDA is a long-awaited step in the process FDA will follow to formally release regulatory guidance about the entry of edible products from cloned farm animals in the food system. I believe that cloning will benefit animal agriculture (see my previous Blog on cloning at http://blogs.das.psu.edu/tetherton/?p=31). I am hopeful that the regulatory review process will move ahead in a timely manner to enable livestock producers and biotechnology companies to sell cloned animals in the marketplace. Cloned animals will be of value because of their increased genetic merit to provide healthy and nutritious meat and milk. Cloned animals will also increase food production, improve disease resistance, and enhance reproductive efficiency. An additional benefit is that cloning can be used to protect endangered species.

The next step in the ongoing review process is for the FDA to seek comments from the public about the draft risk assessment. Draft Risk Assessment documents will be available for public comment for 90 days (due by Wednesday, March 28, 2007). I encourage readers to provide your comments on these documents. Comments should be sent to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with Docket number 2003N-0573. Comments may also be submitted electronically via the Internet at http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/oc/dockets/comments/commentdocket.cfm.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

To Pennsylvania Milk Producers:

The October grassroots producer meeting held in Schaefferstown, PA to examine the so-called “rbST-free” issue is getting some results, and it looks like we can keep this technology available to us if we take action now.

A few local milk processors like Wengert’s Dairy and Clover Farms have decided to back off earlier demands that producers sign a no-rbST affidavit. And we are hearing that other co-ops and processors like Maryland Virginia Cooperative have decided not to pursue rbST free milk. They need the milk and there is no sustained consumer demand for this new rbST free category.

Since that meeting, attended by about 100 producers and industry professionals, we have had a chance to compare some retail prices and learn what kinds of “commissions” producers are getting. The bottom line is that the milk processors stand to make a big profit from the new milk category, and producers are getting peanuts.

For example, in Philadelphia, regular 2 % milk is selling for $3.89 per gallon. Organic milk is selling for $3.99 per half gallon. We could not find any rbST-free milk. However, in the Northern New Jersey and New York City market, regular 1% milk is $3.05/gallon while 1% rbST free milk is $3.40 – 4.09/gallon. Organic milk is selling for $5.29/gallon. For every 8 cents a retailer charges for a gallon of milk it is equal to $1/cwt. Thus, a $3 gallon of milk sells for $37.5 /cwt.

Depending on the locale, retailers are making $5 to $13 (40 cents premium /8 cents = $5 profit) per cwt on rbST free milk, but dairy producers are only receiving 3 to 12 cents per hundredweight or .6-2.4% of the premium, if that, for giving up the right to use this technology. Even 75 cents only represents 10-15% of the premium. There have even been some examples of processors trying to get the milk from non-treated cows without paying any premium at all.

It remains to be seen if consumers will respond to this new category. If they do respond and we all have given up our right to use the technology, the “rbST free” category will become commodity milk, and the price will come down. Any premiums you are getting will go away, and we as dairymen will have lost an important tool that makes us more efficient and profitable.

Consumers have not been demanding this milk (see http://blogs.das.psu.edu/tetherton/?p=109), but big companies hope to create a demand by scaring shoppers. It’s a loser for consumers, and there is nothing in this for the hard-working dairyman, not in the short run and certainly not in the long run when this new category is a commodity. We need to defend our right to use safe and effective technologies and practices on our farms. And we must resist any campaign that makes consumers think milk is not safe.

All dairy farmers need to challenge the coops, processors and retailers that create milk labels and/or advertisements on controversial products such as rbST. Milk labeling and advertising should clear-up fears, not stir-up fears; eliminate confusion, not create confusion; promote dairy, not demote dairy. Our promotion dollars are lost if dairymen allow retailers and bottlers to cannibalize the final products that the customers purchase.

We as dairymen can put a stop to this by ensuring that food companies are unable to provide enough “rbST-free” milk to continue this marketing charade. So, if you have signed an affidavit, we urge you to contact your processor or coop and tell them that you are rescinding your signature. Tell them this “no-rbST” trend is unfair to you, and to consumers and that you want no part of it.

As dairymen our reputation is on the line. Dairymen should be unified in a resounding proclamation. We must demand truth from our food companies. They are part of our team and the consumer deserves honesty in labeling and advertising. We have always produced a product that is totally safe, wholesome and healthy to the consumer and we will continue too. For this reason, we as dairymen should and will not be part of any false advertising or marketing tactics that create false perceptions that the milk consumers’ purchase is not safe, wholesome and healthy.

Sincerely,

Dan Brandt
Annville, PA

Tom Krall
Schaefferstown, PA

Nelson Martin
Robesonia, PA

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Terry Etherton

On December 28, 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft risk assessment (RA) on whether cloning affects food safety or animal health, and whether food products from livestock should be sold for consumption. The draft, “A Risk-Based Approach to Evaluate Animal Clones and Their Progeny – DRAFT” (visit http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CloneRiskAssessment.htm), presents the FDA’s position. The risk assessment concludes that “….the available data has not identified any food consumption risks or subtle hazards in healthy clones of cattle, swine, or goats. Thus, edible products from healthy clones that meet existing requirements for meat and milk in commerce pose no increased food consumption risk(s) relative to comparable products from sexually-derived animals.”

The risk assessment employed a “weight of evidence” approach for drawing conclusions regarding risks to animal health and for consumption of food products from clones and their progeny. This approach consisted of four steps:

There is a long and distinguished history in the U.S. of assessing the safety of foods introduced into the marketplace. FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) has the regulatory responsibility for considering the safety of animals and their progeny that are produced as a result of cloning. In addition, CVM is responsible for the regulatory review conducted to determine the safety of food products (e.g., meat, milk, eggs) from animals developed through cloning.

Assessment of food safety involves an integrated multi-disciplinary approach that incorporates molecular biology, protein chemistry and biochemistry, food chemistry, nutritional sciences and toxicology. Consumers should understand and appreciate that absolute safety is not the objective with respect to any approach used to evaluate complex substances such as food. The standard that has been adopted by FDA is that the food under evaluation should be as safe as an appropriate counterpart that has a long history of safe use. It must be emphasized that it is the food product itself, rather the biotechnology process used to generate cloned animals, that is the focus of the evaluation.

Despite the impressive scientific evidence that food from cloned animals is safe, opponents of cloning and animal biotechnology have again “cranked up” their campaign to scare consumers as a strategy to encourage consumers to avoid food from cloned animals. Arthur Caplan, Ph.D, in an MSNBC piece, put this campaign in perspective: “All of this nonsense took a toll. It made Americans forget that cloning is nothing more than artificially creating twins. It made us forget that every drop of wine we drink comes from cloned grapes. It made us ignore the fact that if you want to worry about what you are eating you would be better off fretting over whether the FDA has enough inspectors on the job at meat plants looking for salmonella and E. coli than whether your dinner started off as a clone.”

The release of the draft RA by the FDA is a long-awaited step in the process FDA will follow to formally release regulatory guidance about the entry of edible products from cloned farm animals in the food system. I believe that cloning will benefit animal agriculture (see my previous Blog on cloning at http://blogs.das.psu.edu/tetherton/?p=31). I am hopeful that the regulatory review process will move ahead in a timely manner to enable livestock producers and biotechnology companies to sell cloned animals in the marketplace. Cloned animals will be of value because of their increased genetic merit to provide healthy and nutritious meat and milk. Cloned animals will also increase food production, improve disease resistance, and enhance reproductive efficiency. An additional benefit is that cloning can be used to protect endangered species.

The next step in the ongoing review process is for the FDA to seek comments from the public about the draft risk assessment. Draft Risk Assessment documents will be available for public comment for 90 days (due by Wednesday, March 28, 2007). I encourage readers to provide your comments on these documents. Comments should be sent to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with Docket number 2003N-0573. Comments may also be submitted electronically via the Internet at http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/oc/dockets/comments/commentdocket.cfm.

Permalink

Comments are closed.