Cancéropôle Lyon Rhône-Alpes

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 healthydiet.”

“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.

Terry Etherton

The latest American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) Marketbasket Survey was released in July, 2007. The informal survey shows the total cost of 16 basic grocery items in the second quarter of 2007 was $42.95, up about 4 percent or $1.61 from the first quarter of 2007. A total of 82 volunteer shoppers in 32 states participated in the latest survey, conducted during May. Of the 16 items surveyed, 14 increased, one decreased and one stayed the same in average price compared to the 2007 first-quarter survey. Compared to one year ago, the overall cost for the marketbasket items showed an increase of about 8 percent. Regular whole milk showed the largest quarter-to-quarter price increase, up 34 cents to $3.46 per gallon.

As retail grocery prices have gradually increased, the share of the average food dollar that America’s farm and ranch families receive continues to decrease. “In the mid-1970s, farmers received about one-third of consumer retail food expenditures on average. That figure has decreased steadily over time and is now just 22 percent according to Agriculture Department statistics,” AFBF Economist Jim Sartwelle said. AFBF, the nation’s largest general farm organization, conducts its informal quarterly marketbasket survey as a tool to reflect retail food price trends. According to USDA statistics, Americans spend just under 10 percent of their disposable income on food annually, the lowest average of any country in the world.

Milk Price Trends

The most recent Marketbasket Survey has begun to track the prices of conventional milk, rbST-free milk, and organic milk.

No surprises here - rbST-free and organic cost a whole lot more! More of the old “smoke and mirrors” marketing campaign of charging a whole lot more money for nothing. As readers of my Blog know there are no compositional differences within a fat category among conventional, rbST-free and organic milks.

For the second quarter of 2007, shoppers found the average price for a half-gallon of regular whole milk to be $2.22. The average price for one gallon of regular whole milk was $3.46. Comparing per-quart prices, the retail price for whole milk sold in gallon containers was 28 percent lower compared to half-gallon containers, a typical volume discount long employed by retailers.

The average price for a half-gallon of rBST-free milk was $3.01, 36 percent higher than a half-gallon of regular milk. The average price for a half-gallon of organic milk was $3.65, 64 percent higher than a half-gallon of regular milk.

These data agree with my own observations. I was in Minneapolis, MN the week of July 22, 2007 and did an informal survey of milk prices in several different grocery store chains. Interestingly, the differential between conventional and rbST-free was the same for the different chains - the rbST-free cost $1 a gallon more compared to conventional milk! Wonder how these stores got the same markup? That is fodder for another blog.

More Smoke and Mirrors

As readers of my Blog appreciate, attempts to differentiate food based on technologies and management practices used in production when no differences exist, is misleading and creates confusion for consumers. In the rbST-free milk battle, rbST-free milk price is much higher yet farmers get, at best, pennies on the dollars. Net result? The folks “upstream” from the farmer, i.e., processors and retailers, are making a whole LOT of money in this deal! I will write more about this in the future.

To illustrate the dysfunction in the dairy industry a recent “proposal” was shared with me from the Mountain Area Council of Dairy Farmer of America (DFA). DFA is the nation’s largest producer-owned dairy marketing cooperative and food company. DFA markets more than 61.7 billion pounds of milk (total U.S. production is over 180 billion pounds) collected from over 19,100 dairy producers. The proverbial “800 pound” gorilla in the dairy cooperative world!

According to a copy of a letter I received written by Les Hardesty, Chairman, and Gregory Yando, Chief Operating Officer of the Mountain Area Council of DFA, the Mountain Area Council proposes to pay a premium of 50 cents/hundredweight of milk to farmers who don’t use rbST. This premium is being offered even though processors/retailers in that region of the country are apparently only willing to pay 35 cents/hundredweight more for rbST-free milk!!

The story shared with me gets even more bizarre. Since the processors/retailers are refusing to pay the differential between 50 cents and 35 cents (i.e., 15 cents/hundredweight) for rbST-free milk, the Mountain Area Council needs to cash flow the premium they are supposedly proposing. The working idea is that producers who use rbST will be charged an additional 15 cents/hundredweight for their milk…with the proceeds going to cash flow the premium for non-users. What a deal! Not a great way to build goodwill among dairy producers who use one of the best and safest animal biotechnologies approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It will be interesting to track this story to see what actually plays out.

A key take-home message is that in the current $20 milk market, a fair premium for NOT using rbST is about $1.47! Thus, the 50 cent premium is far short of fairly and fully compensating producers to give up using rbST. Not a surprise given that a key part of this “stealing your milk money” marketing campaign is to financially exploit dairy farmers…helps grow the margin at retail.

My encouragement is that dairy producers of America who care about maintaining their choice of using technologies and farming practices they deem appropriate step up to the plate and defend their businesses. If not, we will continue to witness more assaults on the use of other biotechnologies, technologies and farming practices by America’s farmers.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Dennis Halladay
Hoard’s West
Published - March 2007

This is an informative article about the ongoing rbST public debate. As you will see, Mr. Halladay is outraged about a decision made by a dairy cooperative in California (CDI) to NOT accept milk from cloned cows or rbST-supplemented cows. I, too, am appalled at the decision that was made by CDI.

This way to read the article.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Terry Etherton

The latest American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) Marketbasket Survey was released in July, 2007. The informal survey shows the total cost of 16 basic grocery items in the second quarter of 2007 was $42.95, up about 4 percent or $1.61 from the first quarter of 2007. A total of 82 volunteer shoppers in 32 states participated in the latest survey, conducted during May. Of the 16 items surveyed, 14 increased, one decreased and one stayed the same in average price compared to the 2007 first-quarter survey. Compared to one year ago, the overall cost for the marketbasket items showed an increase of about 8 percent. Regular whole milk showed the largest quarter-to-quarter price increase, up 34 cents to $3.46 per gallon.

As retail grocery prices have gradually increased, the share of the average food dollar that America’s farm and ranch families receive continues to decrease. “In the mid-1970s, farmers received about one-third of consumer retail food expenditures on average. That figure has decreased steadily over time and is now just 22 percent according to Agriculture Department statistics,” AFBF Economist Jim Sartwelle said. AFBF, the nation’s largest general farm organization, conducts its informal quarterly marketbasket survey as a tool to reflect retail food price trends. According to USDA statistics, Americans spend just under 10 percent of their disposable income on food annually, the lowest average of any country in the world.

Milk Price Trends

The most recent Marketbasket Survey has begun to track the prices of conventional milk, rbST-free milk, and organic milk.

No surprises here - rbST-free and organic cost a whole lot more! More of the old “smoke and mirrors” marketing campaign of charging a whole lot more money for nothing. As readers of my Blog know there are no compositional differences within a fat category among conventional, rbST-free and organic milks.

For the second quarter of 2007, shoppers found the average price for a half-gallon of regular whole milk to be $2.22. The average price for one gallon of regular whole milk was $3.46. Comparing per-quart prices, the retail price for whole milk sold in gallon containers was 28 percent lower compared to half-gallon containers, a typical volume discount long employed by retailers.

The average price for a half-gallon of rBST-free milk was $3.01, 36 percent higher than a half-gallon of regular milk. The average price for a half-gallon of organic milk was $3.65, 64 percent higher than a half-gallon of regular milk.

These data agree with my own observations. I was in Minneapolis, MN the week of July 22, 2007 and did an informal survey of milk prices in several different grocery store chains. Interestingly, the differential between conventional and rbST-free was the same for the different chains - the rbST-free cost $1 a gallon more compared to conventional milk! Wonder how these stores got the same markup? That is fodder for another blog.

More Smoke and Mirrors

As readers of my Blog appreciate, attempts to differentiate food based on technologies and management practices used in production when no differences exist, is misleading and creates confusion for consumers. In the rbST-free milk battle, rbST-free milk price is much higher yet farmers get, at best, pennies on the dollars. Net result? The folks “upstream” from the farmer, i.e., processors and retailers, are making a whole LOT of money in this deal! I will write more about this in the future.

To illustrate the dysfunction in the dairy industry a recent “proposal” was shared with me from the Mountain Area Council of Dairy Farmer of America (DFA). DFA is the nation’s largest producer-owned dairy marketing cooperative and food company. DFA markets more than 61.7 billion pounds of milk (total U.S. production is over 180 billion pounds) collected from over 19,100 dairy producers. The proverbial “800 pound” gorilla in the dairy cooperative world!

According to a copy of a letter I received written by Les Hardesty, Chairman, and Gregory Yando, Chief Operating Officer of the Mountain Area Council of DFA, the Mountain Area Council proposes to pay a premium of 50 cents/hundredweight of milk to farmers who don’t use rbST. This premium is being offered even though processors/retailers in that region of the country are apparently only willing to pay 35 cents/hundredweight more for rbST-free milk!!

The story shared with me gets even more bizarre. Since the processors/retailers are refusing to pay the differential between 50 cents and 35 cents (i.e., 15 cents/hundredweight) for rbST-free milk, the Mountain Area Council needs to cash flow the premium they are supposedly proposing. The working idea is that producers who use rbST will be charged an additional 15 cents/hundredweight for their milk…with the proceeds going to cash flow the premium for non-users. What a deal! Not a great way to build goodwill among dairy producers who use one of the best and safest animal biotechnologies approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It will be interesting to track this story to see what actually plays out.

A key take-home message is that in the current $20 milk market, a fair premium for NOT using rbST is about $1.47! Thus, the 50 cent premium is far short of fairly and fully compensating producers to give up using rbST. Not a surprise given that a key part of this “stealing your milk money” marketing campaign is to financially exploit dairy farmers…helps grow the margin at retail.

My encouragement is that dairy producers of America who care about maintaining their choice of using technologies and farming practices they deem appropriate step up to the plate and defend their businesses. If not, we will continue to witness more assaults on the use of other biotechnologies, technologies and farming practices by America’s farmers.

Permalink

Comments are closed.