Cancéropôle Lyon Rhône-Alpes

rbstjointletter11-07-06b.pdf

Permalink

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

new-york-farm-bureau-rbst-letter-to-fda.pdf

Permalink

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

hoards-west-article-march-2007.pdf

Permalink

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

igf-fact-sheet.pdf

Permalink

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

The Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) has conducted a review that comprehensively compares organic and conventional foods with respect to pesticide residues, nutritional components, naturally occurring toxins, and microbiological safety. A synopsis (copied with Permission) was published in the October issue (Volume 60:44, 2006) of Food Technology. The full-text of the peer-reviewed Science Status Summary was published in the Journal of Food Science (Volume 71:R117-R124, 2006).

These reviews are a great “read”!

A key summary point is that “it is premature to conclude that either food production system is superior to the other with respect to safety or nutritional composition.” So, please read these reviews, and make your own conclusions.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Terry Etherton

The battle for public perception about “biotechnology in the barnyard” and animal agriculture is an interesting illustration of the use of “word play” or “verbal engineering” by anti-biotech activist groups. The intent? To misinform and scare consumers about biotechnology, science and our food production systems.

These “word sequences” are carefully engineered. The internet is awash in them!

Given the proliferation of junk science rhetoric on the internet, it seems like there is big business in scaring consumers.

A Story of Word Play - Some Examples

The activist groups who promote rbST-free milk also tout the merits of artificial hormone-free (AHF) milk. The obvious intent is to scare consumers by using the words “artificial” and “hormone”. As readers of Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology and Terry Etherton’s Blog on Hormones, Biotechnology, and Food Safety know, all milk contains a lot of naturally occurring hormones, and conventional, rbST-free and organic milk are all equally safe.

Back to AHF…if a hormone is the same, regardless of whether it is made by a “natural” or “synthetic” process does it matter how it is made? Absolutely, not!

I have not had any calls or emails from individuals with diabetes expressing concern about their use of synthetic/artificial (or recombinant) human insulin.

With respect to synthesizing recombinant proteins such as bovine somatotropin, human insulin or human somatotropin that are the same as those made “naturally”, is it really artificial if it is synthesized using the same biology that takes place in the body? How come we don’t call proteins made in the body synthetic? In science, we do. However, we refer to the process as biosynthesis!

My point - it is inaccurate, and misleading, to use the logic that associating the words “artificial” or “synthetic” with the word hormone makes that hormone different than the “natural” version. They are exactly the same. Obviously, the intent is to scare consumers with some combination of the words artificial, synthetic and hormone on milk cartons.

More word play…

“Factory farming” is another term used by the Luddites to misrepresent farming to consumers. The intent is to convey that something bad is being done in production agriculture. As readers of Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology know, this is nonsense! The farms are NOT factories and the vast, vast majority are owned and operated by families.

Sustainable farming is touted by organic food groups as the way to farm. The clear inference is that the “other” forms of agriculture production are NOT sustainable, and that progressive farmers are not practicing sustainable farming practices. I have yet to meet any farmer who is not concerned about being a good steward of their land and animals! That is, using effective and appropriate management systems to sustain their farm for future generations.

Evolution of word play…

Language obviously evolved as a communication tool. A critical aspect is how the use of a word(s) has an intended impact on other associated words in the phrase or sentence. For example, the word organic by itself has a broad and much different meaning than the phrase “organic chemistry”.

It is interesting that the word “organic” has been hijacked by promoters of “organic food”. The first definition of organic in Dictionary.com is: “noting or pertaining to a class of chemical compounds that formerly comprised only those existing in or derived from plants or animals, but that now includes all other compounds of carbon.” This is a long way from the intent of the organic food crowd. I find it ironic that foods we consume, irrespective of their being described as organic, natural, or conventional are loaded with organic chemicals…a reality that seems to be overlooked by many.

My encouragement - there are more pressing social issues to tackle than worrying about the attacks on the most robust, and safest, food system ever witnessed in recorded history by using word play or verbal engineering that has as its goal to misinform and scare consumers. My encouragement - let’s use the evidence base built on sound science to inform consumers about biotechnology, the food system and food safety, not the scare tactics pushed by the activist groups that are based on misinformation.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Terry Etherton

I am shocked by the factors that drive agriculture policymaking at every level today. Decision makers in the public and private sectors are increasingly influenced by a cohort of activist anti-animal ag advocacy groups whose credibility should at best be questioned and at worst be dismissed absolutely. The example I discussed previously of “Starbucks” being pushed by Food & Water Watch and Organic Consumers Association to stop buying milk containing rbST is a good case study of this.

These and other anti-animal ag, anti-biotech activist groups have a combined annual budget of close to $500 million to spend on efforts designed to influence elected officials and regulators, businesses, and consumers about issues such as animal welfare and housing, use of animals for research, animal and plant biotechnology, antibiotic use, BSE/mad cow disease, cloning, rbST, and pesticide use.

Influence is not the right word to use. Rather, it is terrorism.

Activist groups who actively campaign against animal agriculture and conventional production practices have as their objective to move consumers to a plant-based diet and end “factory farming” (one of their favorite, deceptive sound bites used to scare consumers) … fear-based and emotional marketing strategies are their standard tactical approach.

My question: Who is on the other side of this discussion? Who is the voice for science, scientists, and production animal agriculture in Washington, DC?

With respect to the ongoing public discussion about rbST-free milk, one would think that Dairy Management Incorporated (DMI), International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA), National Milk Producers Federation or the American Dairy Science Association would be active in supporting the use of a biotechnology that is safe and increases profitability of America’s dairy farmers.

Guess what? They are not.

Their silence is a victory for the trolls who attack science and biotechnology in animal agriculture … and, who scare people about food safety when we have the safest food supply in recorded history.

While advocacy is the core aspect of the “anti’s” mission, I should find another descriptor for advocacy because it implies that you are “for” something. It is abundantly clear that these groups are really “anti-everything.” They embody a “take-away” strategy rather than championing a noble effort that pursues a mission of “adding to” society. Of doing something for the greater good.

Unfortunately, I don’t see much effective public advocacy for animal agriculture and science. There should be an ongoing robust population-wide education effort that actively promotes the need for, and benefits of, sound science and the scientific method, and that defends the choice of farmers to use new technologies and biotechnologies. My encouragement to those who care about doing the “right thing” is to become engaged in this ongoing public discussion.

There are no easy answers in this debate. It is important that pro-animal agriculture groups and scientists become the voice of sanity and reason. If we don’t take a proactive approach to this challenge, if we continue to sit on, or close to the sidelines, we may be marginalized in the process that builds the future regulatory environment for animal agriculture and best-management practices in the United States.

If this happens, we could witness a substantial core of our food production system move off-shore. Then the issue looms as to whether we can have national security in the absence of food security.

And the answer to that is NO.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

New Data Show Milk Marketing Claims Are Misleading - Scientific Analysis of Retail Milk Samples from 48 States Shows No Difference in Concentrations of bST, IGF-1 and Progesterone; No Antibiotics Found in Milk

ST LOUIS, Jan. 25 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — Monsanto announced on January 25, 2007 that new data from a national study of milk show that marketing claims implying that milk from cows not treated with POSILAC bovine somatotropin (bST) is safer or healthier are misleading. Scientific analysis of retail milk samples gathered from 48 states showed no difference in concentrations of bST, insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), progesterone or nutrients in conventionally produced milk and conventionally produced milk labeled as coming from cows not supplemented with POSILAC. No antibiotic residues were found in any samples.

The findings of the study, conducted by Monsanto with third-party testing facilities and an independent auditing firm, reinforce that milk marketing claims differentiating milk based on POSILAC use are meaningless. “The study findings are not surprising. Marketing claims that imply differences are unsupported by the scientific data,” said John Vicini, Ph.D., lead dairy scientist for Monsanto. “The results are consistent with FDA’s exhaustive review of previous studies.”

The new study included 213 samples of 95 milk brands and compared conventionally produced milk with conventionally produced milk labeled as coming from cows not receiving POSILAC. The samples were gathered from 162 retail locations in 48 states. The study results, which Monsanto intends to submit to a peer-reviewed scientific journal, showed that there was: — no difference in the levels of the hormones progesterone, IGF-1 or bST, — no differences in nutrients, and — no antibiotic residue in any of the samples.

Monsanto initiated the research after recent actions taken by several processors and retailers implied or suggested to consumers that conventionally produced milk is compositionally different if it comes from cows not supplemented with POSILAC. “These results call into question marketing of higher priced milk from cows not treated with POSILAC based on claims about growth hormones or antibiotics that imply a difference in milk composition or safety,” Vicini said. “They confuse consumers regarding a safe, nutritious food that’s an important part of a healthy diet.”

“Farmers should be free to choose FDA-approved technology that lowers their costs and provides the same quality milk to consumers,” said Kevin Holloway, President of Monsanto’s dairy business. “As a tool that makes dairy producers more efficient, POSILAC also reduces the environmental impact of dairying.”

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Listen | subscribe

This interview with Terry Etherton and Trent Loos took place on November 28, 2007. Rural Route is a one-hour radio show aimed at bridging rural and urban America. Each weekday the program looks at the key issues affecting our nation and explores what they mean for those involved in agriculture and those that derive the benefits of products produced by America’s farmers and ranchers. Rural Route is hosted by Trent Loos, a sixth generation U.S. rancher based in Central Nebraska. Other regular on-air personalities include Kyle Bauer (five days a week), Duane Toews (on Fridays) and Hank Vogler (on Mondays). This way for more information about Trent Loos and Rural Route Radio.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

rbstjointletter11-07-06b.pdf

Permalink

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.