Cancéropôle Lyon Rhône-Alpes

REVIEW & OUTLOOK (Published on January 20, 2007; Page A10)

Starbucks advertises itself as a coffee company with a social conscience. These are the folks who created the marketing gimmick of “fair trade” coffee for America’s latte drinkers. So it’s no shock that Starbucks announced this week that it will buckle under to pressure from left-wing activist groups and phase-out its purchases of milk containing artificial growth hormone.

In so doing the company will help legitimize one of the greatest consumer frauds of recent times: that milk from cows injected with the growth hormone rBGH causes cancer. The hormone’s critics also allege that drinking this milk causes early puberty in girls. About 20% of dairy products today comes from cows injected with hormones, which causes them to produce more milk, which in turn reduces prices to consumers. But for 20 years, green and Naderite groups, such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest, have waged a campaign against rBGH. That campaign has duped millions of health-conscious Americans into paying 40 cents to $2 a gallon more for “hormone-free” milk.

It’s a free country, and if Americans are willing to pay a $2-a-gallon premium for a meaningless label on the milk carton, so be it. But as far back as 1993 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved rGBH-milk as “safe for human consumption.” Some 14 billion gallons have since been consumed, and there have been no documented instances of disease or sickness. Henry Miller of the Hoover Institution, a former director of the FDA’s office of biotechnology, states emphatically: “There is no scientific evidence of a cancer link from the hormone rBGH — period.”<!– D(["mb"," \n \nIronically, many of the same &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;green&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; groups, which insist that we\nfollow the &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;scientific consensus&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; on global warming, are contemptuous\nof the genuine scientific agreement on the benefits of bio-engineering. One\nmight think that the left would celebrate technologies that make food more\nplentiful and cheaper for consumers. With recent claims that millions of\nAmericans go to bed hungry each night, why aren&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;t these groups cheering\ninnovations that cut food costs for the world? \n \nInstead, the Organic Consumers Association, one of the leading opponents of\nrBGH, compares dairy farms to &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;concentration camps&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; on its Website.\nPeople for the Ethical Treatment of Animals claims that hormones are unfair to\nthe cows because they have to carry around more milk. \n \nThe affluent in America can afford to pay higher grocery bills and buy $3\ncoffee every morning as they wage war against biotechnology. But they do so at\nthe expense of the world&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;s poor, who benefit most from cheap, more abundant\nfood. &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;There are often fatal consequences to these groups&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39; Luddite\nphilosophy,&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; notes Fred Smith, president of the Competitive Enterprise\nInstitute. \n \nAs for Starbucks, its spokesman Brandon Borrman told us &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;we are only\nresponding to the desires of our customers.&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; It&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;s hard to see how\nStarbucks can absorb the higher costs of hormone-free milk without off-loading\nthem onto their customers&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39; lattes. And maybe there&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;s a kind of justice in that.\nAs to &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;social responsibility,&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; it&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;s hard to see where the\nresponsibility lies in promoting a scientifically discredited fear. \n URL for this article: \nhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB116925841311282331.html \n \n

\n\n“,1] ); //–>

Ironically, many of the same “green” groups, which insist that we follow the “scientific consensus” on global warming, are contemptuous of the genuine scientific agreement on the benefits of bio-engineering. One might think that the left would celebrate technologies that make food more plentiful and cheaper for consumers. With recent claims that millions of Americans go to bed hungry each night, why aren’t these groups cheering innovations that cut food costs for the world?

Instead, the Organic Consumers Association, one of the leading opponents of rBGH, compares dairy farms to “concentration camps” on its Website. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals claims that hormones are unfair to the cows because they have to carry around more milk.

The affluent in America can afford to pay higher grocery bills and buy $3 coffee every morning as they wage war against biotechnology. But they do so at the expense of the world’s poor, who benefit most from cheap, more abundant food. “There are often fatal consequences to these groups’ Luddite philosophy,” notes Fred Smith, president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

As for Starbucks, its spokesman Brandon Borrman told us “we are only responding to the desires of our customers.” It’s hard to see how Starbucks can absorb the higher costs of hormone-free milk without off-loading them onto their customers’ lattes. And maybe there’s a kind of justice in that. As to “social responsibility,” it’s hard to see where the responsibility lies in promoting a scientifically discredited fear.

The URL for this article can be found at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116925841311282331.html

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Terry Etherton

As a scientist, I am stunned by the factors that are driving policy-making at every level today—from Capitol Hill, to the boardroom, to the kitchen, decision-makers are increasingly influenced by a constituency whose credibility should at best be questioned and at worst be dismissed absolutely. According to wikipedia, the scientific method “is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning[1].“ Evidence and reasoning are in short supply in the debate over rbST. Activist advocacy groups are using fear-based and emotional arguments that are having an impact on our society.

The Organic Consumers Association and their Public Citizen spin-off protégé Food and Water Watch are currently at the front of the anti-rBST activity currently swirling around milk producers, processor and retailers. Like the Luddites before them, these groups are opposed to change. But unlike the Luddites, for whom change was an implied threat to their livelihoods, the livelihood of these groups actually depends on change. Any advances in science or chemistry are a boon to their efforts, as they need something to oppose in order to stay relevant and keep their fund raising efforts alive. Today it is the FDA approved- and proven-safe-over-a-decade rbST, tomorrow —what?

These “anti” activist organizations are groups whose full-time efforts are devoted to opposing approved technologies that improve our lives, economically and otherwise. They are funded by foundations whose assets run into the billions of dollars. B. Billions. These foundations have a clear agenda, and they give generously to those who share their goals. All the recipients have to spend their money on is advocacy. I should find another word, because advocacy implies that you are “for” something when these groups are really anti-everything. They embody a “take-away” strategy rather than pursue a noble effort that pursues a mission of “adding to” society.

Imagine the impact a corporation with a billion dollar public relations or marketing department could have? Even Starbucks, with all of their socially-responsible caché appears to be incapable of withstanding the five-year onslaught from these groups.

And where is the evidence and reasoning, the voices of sanity and reason within the scientific community? Where are the voices of dairy producer groups in the public discussion? These activists do threaten your livelihood. As easily as lawmakers can pass legislation that is burdensome for our farmers, they can turn their eye to research, development and production, and impose restrictions that will put companies out of business, and reduce research funds for scientists like me. I appreciate that part of the silence in the scientific community is really just perception based on the reality that reporters simply do not want to talk about the science. But isn’t that what citizen journalism is all about? Using alternative media as a vehicle for both getting and giving out information, like this blog. I urge other scientists to join me, because if consumers and others were informed about the science and the scientific evidence base that supports the use of rbST, instead of with fear, there would be no debate at all.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Terry Etherton

A friend forwarded the email below, which was distributed by Food & Water Watch, an activist group at the forefront of the effort to have Starbucks adopt rbST-free milk.

Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:34:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Food & Water Watch <fwwatch@mail.democracyinaction.org>
Subject: Starbucks still needs to do MORE!

Yesterday, Reuters and several other news sources reported that Starbucks had decided to switch to milk produced without the artificial growth hormone rBGH.

We’re really excited to hear about the company making progress towards being totally artificial hormone-free - but there is still more to do. Right now, the company has committed to switching in several states, which would mean that 37 percent of their milk comes from cows not treated with artificial hormones.

This is excellent progress and shows that they are feeling the pressure created by your emails and phone calls. Good work!

Now we need to keep the pressure up to make sure that they finish the job and get their entire supply switched over to better milk.

Click here to send Starbucks an updated email urging them to finish the job and go completely artificial hormone-free!

Thank you,
Lauren Guite
food@fwwatch.org

This email is telling in that it clearly conveys that activist groups are going to continue their campaign of spreading misinformation about rbST, and targeting Starbucks. They have been actively pushing Starbucks for five years using these campaigns, and others that are intended to tarnish Starbucks’ brand name and market value on Wall Street.

It is unfortunate that Starbucks caved to these Luddites. Starbucks’ policy disregards extensive scientific proof that there is no difference in the milk from cows receiving rbST and any other milk (see Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology). Instead, Starbucks seeks to build its brand on the hysterical claims of activist groups that say this milk is bad for people to drink. The truth is that Starbucks cannot demonstrate there is a difference between the milk it plans to serve and the milk it served before.

It is important to appreciate that the first publication of Starbucks’ new rbST-free milk policy was made December 5, 2006. It was not made on Starbucks’ website BUT on the Food and Water Watch blog site. Starbucks’ position became more widelyknown after Reuters published Starbucks’ shameful position in January, 2007.

Starbucks’ decision threatens dairy farmer access to beneficial FDA-approved technology that makes them more profitable and efficient at producing healthy, affordable milk. It also conveys to the public the notion that there is something wrong with the milk they drink. The fact is that all milk is the same. Moreover, well conducted consumer surveys show that there is no increase in consumer demand for rbST-free milk! Unfortunately, what continues unchanged is the “smoke and mirrors” campaign of anti-biotech activists who attack technological innovation, scientists, and the scientific method.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

REVIEW & OUTLOOK (Published on January 20, 2007; Page A10)

Starbucks advertises itself as a coffee company with a social conscience. These are the folks who created the marketing gimmick of “fair trade” coffee for America’s latte drinkers. So it’s no shock that Starbucks announced this week that it will buckle under to pressure from left-wing activist groups and phase-out its purchases of milk containing artificial growth hormone.

In so doing the company will help legitimize one of the greatest consumer frauds of recent times: that milk from cows injected with the growth hormone rBGH causes cancer. The hormone’s critics also allege that drinking this milk causes early puberty in girls. About 20% of dairy products today comes from cows injected with hormones, which causes them to produce more milk, which in turn reduces prices to consumers. But for 20 years, green and Naderite groups, such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest, have waged a campaign against rBGH. That campaign has duped millions of health-conscious Americans into paying 40 cents to $2 a gallon more for “hormone-free” milk.

It’s a free country, and if Americans are willing to pay a $2-a-gallon premium for a meaningless label on the milk carton, so be it. But as far back as 1993 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved rGBH-milk as “safe for human consumption.” Some 14 billion gallons have since been consumed, and there have been no documented instances of disease or sickness. Henry Miller of the Hoover Institution, a former director of the FDA’s office of biotechnology, states emphatically: “There is no scientific evidence of a cancer link from the hormone rBGH — period.”<!– D(["mb"," \n \nIronically, many of the same &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;green&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; groups, which insist that we\nfollow the &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;scientific consensus&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; on global warming, are contemptuous\nof the genuine scientific agreement on the benefits of bio-engineering. One\nmight think that the left would celebrate technologies that make food more\nplentiful and cheaper for consumers. With recent claims that millions of\nAmericans go to bed hungry each night, why aren&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;t these groups cheering\ninnovations that cut food costs for the world? \n \nInstead, the Organic Consumers Association, one of the leading opponents of\nrBGH, compares dairy farms to &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;concentration camps&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; on its Website.\nPeople for the Ethical Treatment of Animals claims that hormones are unfair to\nthe cows because they have to carry around more milk. \n \nThe affluent in America can afford to pay higher grocery bills and buy $3\ncoffee every morning as they wage war against biotechnology. But they do so at\nthe expense of the world&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;s poor, who benefit most from cheap, more abundant\nfood. &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;There are often fatal consequences to these groups&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39; Luddite\nphilosophy,&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; notes Fred Smith, president of the Competitive Enterprise\nInstitute. \n \nAs for Starbucks, its spokesman Brandon Borrman told us &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;we are only\nresponding to the desires of our customers.&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; It&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;s hard to see how\nStarbucks can absorb the higher costs of hormone-free milk without off-loading\nthem onto their customers&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39; lattes. And maybe there&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;s a kind of justice in that.\nAs to &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;social responsibility,&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; it&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;s hard to see where the\nresponsibility lies in promoting a scientifically discredited fear. \n URL for this article: \nhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB116925841311282331.html \n \n

\n\n“,1] ); //–>

Ironically, many of the same “green” groups, which insist that we follow the “scientific consensus” on global warming, are contemptuous of the genuine scientific agreement on the benefits of bio-engineering. One might think that the left would celebrate technologies that make food more plentiful and cheaper for consumers. With recent claims that millions of Americans go to bed hungry each night, why aren’t these groups cheering innovations that cut food costs for the world?

Instead, the Organic Consumers Association, one of the leading opponents of rBGH, compares dairy farms to “concentration camps” on its Website. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals claims that hormones are unfair to the cows because they have to carry around more milk.

The affluent in America can afford to pay higher grocery bills and buy $3 coffee every morning as they wage war against biotechnology. But they do so at the expense of the world’s poor, who benefit most from cheap, more abundant food. “There are often fatal consequences to these groups’ Luddite philosophy,” notes Fred Smith, president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

As for Starbucks, its spokesman Brandon Borrman told us “we are only responding to the desires of our customers.” It’s hard to see how Starbucks can absorb the higher costs of hormone-free milk without off-loading them onto their customers’ lattes. And maybe there’s a kind of justice in that. As to “social responsibility,” it’s hard to see where the responsibility lies in promoting a scientifically discredited fear.

The URL for this article can be found at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116925841311282331.html

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Terry Etherton

As a scientist, I am stunned by the factors that are driving policy-making at every level today—from Capitol Hill, to the boardroom, to the kitchen, decision-makers are increasingly influenced by a constituency whose credibility should at best be questioned and at worst be dismissed absolutely. According to wikipedia, the scientific method “is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning[1].“ Evidence and reasoning are in short supply in the debate over rbST. Activist advocacy groups are using fear-based and emotional arguments that are having an impact on our society.

The Organic Consumers Association and their Public Citizen spin-off protégé Food and Water Watch are currently at the front of the anti-rBST activity currently swirling around milk producers, processor and retailers. Like the Luddites before them, these groups are opposed to change. But unlike the Luddites, for whom change was an implied threat to their livelihoods, the livelihood of these groups actually depends on change. Any advances in science or chemistry are a boon to their efforts, as they need something to oppose in order to stay relevant and keep their fund raising efforts alive. Today it is the FDA approved- and proven-safe-over-a-decade rbST, tomorrow —what?

These “anti” activist organizations are groups whose full-time efforts are devoted to opposing approved technologies that improve our lives, economically and otherwise. They are funded by foundations whose assets run into the billions of dollars. B. Billions. These foundations have a clear agenda, and they give generously to those who share their goals. All the recipients have to spend their money on is advocacy. I should find another word, because advocacy implies that you are “for” something when these groups are really anti-everything. They embody a “take-away” strategy rather than pursue a noble effort that pursues a mission of “adding to” society.

Imagine the impact a corporation with a billion dollar public relations or marketing department could have? Even Starbucks, with all of their socially-responsible caché appears to be incapable of withstanding the five-year onslaught from these groups.

And where is the evidence and reasoning, the voices of sanity and reason within the scientific community? Where are the voices of dairy producer groups in the public discussion? These activists do threaten your livelihood. As easily as lawmakers can pass legislation that is burdensome for our farmers, they can turn their eye to research, development and production, and impose restrictions that will put companies out of business, and reduce research funds for scientists like me. I appreciate that part of the silence in the scientific community is really just perception based on the reality that reporters simply do not want to talk about the science. But isn’t that what citizen journalism is all about? Using alternative media as a vehicle for both getting and giving out information, like this blog. I urge other scientists to join me, because if consumers and others were informed about the science and the scientific evidence base that supports the use of rbST, instead of with fear, there would be no debate at all.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Terry Etherton

A friend forwarded the email below, which was distributed by Food & Water Watch, an activist group at the forefront of the effort to have Starbucks adopt rbST-free milk.

Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:34:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Food & Water Watch <fwwatch@mail.democracyinaction.org>
Subject: Starbucks still needs to do MORE!

Yesterday, Reuters and several other news sources reported that Starbucks had decided to switch to milk produced without the artificial growth hormone rBGH.

We’re really excited to hear about the company making progress towards being totally artificial hormone-free - but there is still more to do. Right now, the company has committed to switching in several states, which would mean that 37 percent of their milk comes from cows not treated with artificial hormones.

This is excellent progress and shows that they are feeling the pressure created by your emails and phone calls. Good work!

Now we need to keep the pressure up to make sure that they finish the job and get their entire supply switched over to better milk.

Click here to send Starbucks an updated email urging them to finish the job and go completely artificial hormone-free!

Thank you,
Lauren Guite
food@fwwatch.org

This email is telling in that it clearly conveys that activist groups are going to continue their campaign of spreading misinformation about rbST, and targeting Starbucks. They have been actively pushing Starbucks for five years using these campaigns, and others that are intended to tarnish Starbucks’ brand name and market value on Wall Street.

It is unfortunate that Starbucks caved to these Luddites. Starbucks’ policy disregards extensive scientific proof that there is no difference in the milk from cows receiving rbST and any other milk (see Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology). Instead, Starbucks seeks to build its brand on the hysterical claims of activist groups that say this milk is bad for people to drink. The truth is that Starbucks cannot demonstrate there is a difference between the milk it plans to serve and the milk it served before.

It is important to appreciate that the first publication of Starbucks’ new rbST-free milk policy was made December 5, 2006. It was not made on Starbucks’ website BUT on the Food and Water Watch blog site. Starbucks’ position became more widelyknown after Reuters published Starbucks’ shameful position in January, 2007.

Starbucks’ decision threatens dairy farmer access to beneficial FDA-approved technology that makes them more profitable and efficient at producing healthy, affordable milk. It also conveys to the public the notion that there is something wrong with the milk they drink. The fact is that all milk is the same. Moreover, well conducted consumer surveys show that there is no increase in consumer demand for rbST-free milk! Unfortunately, what continues unchanged is the “smoke and mirrors” campaign of anti-biotech activists who attack technological innovation, scientists, and the scientific method.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

REVIEW & OUTLOOK (Published on January 20, 2007; Page A10)

Starbucks advertises itself as a coffee company with a social conscience. These are the folks who created the marketing gimmick of “fair trade” coffee for America’s latte drinkers. So it’s no shock that Starbucks announced this week that it will buckle under to pressure from left-wing activist groups and phase-out its purchases of milk containing artificial growth hormone.

In so doing the company will help legitimize one of the greatest consumer frauds of recent times: that milk from cows injected with the growth hormone rBGH causes cancer. The hormone’s critics also allege that drinking this milk causes early puberty in girls. About 20% of dairy products today comes from cows injected with hormones, which causes them to produce more milk, which in turn reduces prices to consumers. But for 20 years, green and Naderite groups, such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest, have waged a campaign against rBGH. That campaign has duped millions of health-conscious Americans into paying 40 cents to $2 a gallon more for “hormone-free” milk.

It’s a free country, and if Americans are willing to pay a $2-a-gallon premium for a meaningless label on the milk carton, so be it. But as far back as 1993 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved rGBH-milk as “safe for human consumption.” Some 14 billion gallons have since been consumed, and there have been no documented instances of disease or sickness. Henry Miller of the Hoover Institution, a former director of the FDA’s office of biotechnology, states emphatically: “There is no scientific evidence of a cancer link from the hormone rBGH — period.”

Terry Etherton

As a scientist, I am stunned by the factors that are driving policy-making at every level today—from Capitol Hill, to the boardroom, to the kitchen, decision-makers are increasingly influenced by a constituency whose credibility should at best be questioned and at worst be dismissed absolutely. According to wikipedia, the scientific method “is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning[1].“ Evidence and reasoning are in short supply in the debate over rbST. Activist advocacy groups are using fear-based and emotional arguments that are having an impact on our society.

The Organic Consumers Association and their Public Citizen spin-off protégé Food and Water Watch are currently at the front of the anti-rBST activity currently swirling around milk producers, processor and retailers. Like the Luddites before them, these groups are opposed to change. But unlike the Luddites, for whom change was an implied threat to their livelihoods, the livelihood of thesegroups actually depends on change. Any advances in science or chemistry are a boon to their efforts, as they need something to oppose in order to stay relevant and keep their fund raising efforts alive. Today it is the FDA approved- and proven-safe-over-a-decade rbST, tomorrow —what?

These “anti” activist organizations are groups whose full-time efforts are devoted to opposing approved technologies that improve our lives, economically and otherwise. They are funded by foundations whose assets run into the billions of dollars. B. Billions. These foundations have a clear agenda, and they give generously to those who share their goals. All the recipients have to spend their money on is advocacy. I should find another word, because advocacy implies that you are “for” something when these groups are really anti-everything. They embody a “take-away” strategy rather than pursue a noble effort that pursues a mission of “adding to” society.

Imagine the impact a corporation with a billion dollar public relations or marketing department could have? Even Starbucks, with all of their socially-responsible caché appears to be incapable of withstanding the five-year onslaught from these groups.

And where is the evidence and reasoning, the voices of sanity and reason within the scientific community? Where are the voices of dairy producer groups in the public discussion? These activists do threaten your livelihood. As easily as lawmakers can pass legislation that is burdensome for our farmers, they can turn their eye to research, development and production, and impose restrictions that will put companies out of business, and reduce research funds for scientists like me. I appreciate that part of the silence in the scientific community is really just perception based on the reality that reporters simply do not want to talk about the science. But isn’t that what citizen journalism is all about? Using alternative media as a vehicle for both getting and giving out information, like this blog. I urge other scientists to join me, because if consumers and others were informed about the science and the scientific evidence base that supports the use of rbST, instead of with fear, there would be no debate at all.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Terry Etherton

A friend forwarded the email below, which was distributed by Food & Water Watch, an activist group at the forefront of the effort to have Starbucks adopt rbST-free milk.

Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:34:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Food & Water Watch <fwwatch@mail.democracyinaction.org>
Subject: Starbucks still needs to do MORE!

Yesterday, Reuters and several other news sources reported that Starbucks had decided to switch to milk produced without the artificial growth hormone rBGH.

We’re really excited to hear about the company making progress towards being totally artificial hormone-free - but there is still more to do. Right now, the company has committed to switching in several states, which would mean that 37 percent of their milk comes from cows not treated with artificial hormones.

This is excellent progress and shows that they are feeling the pressure created by your emails and phone calls. Good work!

Now we need to keep the pressure up to make sure that they finish the job and get their entire supply switched over to better milk.

Click here to send Starbucks an updated email urging them to finish the job and go completely artificial hormone-free!

Thank you,
Lauren Guite
food@fwwatch.org

This email is telling in that it clearly conveys that activist groups are going to continue their campaign of spreading misinformation about rbST, and targeting Starbucks. They have been actively pushing Starbucks for five years using these campaigns, and others that are intended to tarnish Starbucks’ brand name and market value on Wall Street.

It is unfortunate that Starbucks caved to these Luddites. Starbucks’ policy disregards extensive scientific proof that there is no difference in the milk from cows receiving rbST and any other milk (see Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology). Instead, Starbucks seeks to build its brand on the hysterical claims of activist groups that say this milk is bad for people to drink. The truth is that Starbucks cannot demonstrate there is a difference between the milk it plans to serve and the milk it served before.

It is important to appreciate that the first publication of Starbucks’ new rbST-free milk policy was made December 5, 2006. It was not made on Starbucks’ website BUT on the Food and Water Watch blog site. Starbucks’ position became more widely known after Reuters published Starbucks’ shameful position in January, 2007.

Starbucks’ decision threatens dairy farmer access to beneficial FDA-approved technology that makes them more profitable and efficient at producing healthy, affordable milk. It also conveys to the public the notion that there is something wrong with the milk they drink. The fact is that all milk is the same. Moreover, well conducted consumer surveys show that there is no increase in consumer demand for rbST-free milk! Unfortunately, what continues unchanged is the “smoke and mirrors” campaign of anti-biotech activists who attack technological innovation, scientists, and the scientific method.

Permalink

Comments are closed.