Cancéropôle Lyon Rhône-Alpes

SHERRY BUNTING
Published in Farmshine (March 28, 2008 Issue)

Dairymen respond to Wal-Mart’s “Great Value”

Wal-Mart announced this week that its Great Value milk brand now sources milk exclusively from cows not treated with rbST. Milk selections at Sam’s Club are also offered from suppliers sourcing milk from non-supplemented cows.

With this announcement came a report on Wal-Mart’s blogging website, where Rand Waddoups, “author for sustainability” writes about several new “sustainability-related” initiatives at Wal-Mart, including this recent change for Great Value milk.

Rand is a senior director at Wal-Mart, and his biography states that he is “looking after the most exciting thing happening in business today, sustainability.” He is part of a small team, which he writes, is dedicated to building sustainability into every part of Wal-Mart’s business strategy via three future goals: 1) to have zero waste, 2) to use 100% renewable energy, and 3) to bring more sustainable products to customers.

On Wednesday, March 19, Rand posted his article “Great news about Wal-Mart milk,” in which he described the switch to exclusive sourcing of milk from cows not treated with rbST. At the end of every report on the sustainability section of Wal-Mart’s blogging website, people can submit comments, and these comments are logged for all to read. That’s what a blog is (short for web log).

Rand’s report about Great Value milk unleashed a landslide of “blogging” responses. As Farmshine was getting ready for press Wednesday night, the total number of comments had reached a whopping 121 (compared to 3, 10, 56, at most, on all other subjects at the blog) over the course of 8 days. Most of the comments were submitted just on Monday and Tuesday of this week. Out of the 121 comments, only 12 thanked Wal-Mart for their decision to change the milk sourcing.

Four comments were actually questions from consumers asking: Will the milk cost more? How will it be enforced? Are rbST and rbGH the same thing? Will there be a sticker on the milk to let us know we are buying non rbST milk?

The remaining 105 comments (including two duplicates) were articulate, thoughtful responses asking Wal-Mart to look at the big picture, learn the facts about the issue, understand the meaning of sustainability from a planet resources point of view, and they repeatedly asked the retail giant to reconsider their Great Value milk sourcing decision.

These comments were mainly from dairy farmers, wives of dairy farmers, and daughters of dairy farmers. About 20% of these dairy-related comments were from veterinarians, nutritionists, dairy consultants, and university dairy and animal science professors, including Dr. Mike Hutjens at the University of Illinois and Dr. John Fetrow, Professor of Dairy Medicine at the University of Minnesota.

Incidentally, there were at least 10 consumer blogs, which were posted after reading the dairymen’s blogs. These consumers started questioning Wal-Mart’s affordable pricing policy. They also questioned the “sustainability” benefits of this decision in terms of efficiency, population growth, and land resources. One consumer voiced environmental concern about this decision, thinking it might contribute to pulling marginal land out of conservation reserve and into production because reduced efficiency in milk production would be occurring at a time when the biofuels craze is also competing for feed grains.

As a writer, what I found so enlightening in reading through the blog, is that hard working dairy farmers took the time to type their thoughts and let their voices be heard. They didn’t worry about being the best writer or how perfect their spelling would be. They simply overcame any trepidation and spoke from the heart.

Some of the comments included scientific facts, figures, and statistics, but for the most part, the responses were simply sincere voices of reason within a complex issue that has taken on a life of its own. From as few as two-lines of comment to long entries of 10-or more paragraphs, each dairyman and industry partner, who commented on the blog, took advantage of a golden opportunity to be heard, to participate in free market democracy.

Congratulations for speaking your mind! Hats off for taking your message to Wal-Mart and consumers. The bottom line here is that dairy farmers spoke up. Consumers need to hear from farmers on these issues of technology. Otherwise, emotion will rule the day on the present issues and those yet to come.

To read the blog and even add to it, visit Wal-Mart’s special blogging website at www.checkoutblog.com. Then click on “sustainability.”

April Class I Recovers Nearly $2

The April Class I milk base price or “mover” will be $18.61 per hundredweight, representing an increase of $1.91 to recover about two-thirds of the March loss, according to the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) announcement last Friday, Mar. 21. The April 2008 price is $3.74 higher than the price of $14.87 for April 2007.

The advance, as expected, came on the heels of stronger butter sales and higher cheese prices, which more than made up for declines in the powdered milk sector (both nonfat dry milk and dry whey).

Advanced prices and pricing factors are based on component prices as reported by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) for only the first two weeks of the previous month (March): Butter $1.2438/lb; Nonfat Dry Milk $1.2537/lb; Cheese $2.0190/lb; and Dry Whey $0.2454/lb.

Market Factors Improve
The above prices used for calculating the April Class I advance price, actually improved a bit more after the two-week cutoff. For example, butter sales continued strong through the holiday last week and cash prices continue to increase, according to USDA AMS Market News.

The NASS Cold Storage Report, issued March 20, showed butter stocks at the end of February were up 8% over last year, after being 26% above year ago at the end of January.

In the cheese sector, prices had declined toward the end of the first two-weeks of the month, which are weeks used in the advanced Class I milk pricing calculation. Cheese prices then rebounded on the cash market at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange through the latter part of March, as export interest continues to factor into the balance of supply and demand. Cheese stocks in cold storage remain 8% below year ago, and reports indicate aging programs are starting to rebuild after being depleted.

In the powder markets during the latter part of March, prices have been firming, up. For example, export demand reportedly continues to help clear the heavy supplies of nonfat dry milk, and dry whey prices are trending a bit higher as supplies become more balanced with current demand.

Fluid production heavy in Southwest

The heavy fluid milk production in the Southwest is increasing due to the good weather conditions. According to USDA AMS Market News, this milk is moving even farther away to find processing capacity.

During February, 9.9 billion pounds of milk were received by the Federal Milk Market Order system, which is 6.3% higher than Feb. 2007, but this leap year had an extra day in the month, which affected the year-over-year comparison.

All market utilization was reported as 37% Class I, 11% Class II, 40% Class III and 12% Class IV. The statistical blend price for February was $18.84 – which was down $1.71 cents from January and $4.14 higher than a year ago.

February’s all-milk price was calculated at $19.30 – $1.20 lower than January and $4.40 higher than Feb. 2007.

The announced U.S. Class I cooperative price for March was reported by USDA AMS at $21.71 compared with $24.63 last month and $18.53 a year ago.

ODA Holds Line on Labeling

The Ohio Department of Agriculture, last week, held the line on the content of the state’s proposed milk labeling law. No changes were made to the original submission of standards, which will now go to the Joint Committee Agency on Rule Review. The Agency will consider the measure this Friday, March 31. The proposed Ohio labeling law is similar to Pennsylvania standards, but goes further in requiring rbST-related claims be followed by a proper disclaimer statement regarding no difference in the milk, and this disclaimer must be of equal size, font, color, and position as the claim.

###

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Posted on Truth About Trade & Technology
April 2, 2008

Sixty-six university dairy and veterinary scientists launched a broad attack Monday against milk processors and retail marketers who increasingly seek to advertise and label milk produced by cows not treated with Monsanto’s recombinant bovine somatotropin. A letter from professors at nearly every major land grant university asserted there was no difference between conventional and “rBST-free” or organic milk but that consumers were being misled by emotional advertising claims to pay higher prices.

“Organic and ‘rBST-free’ milk are routinely advertised as being somehow healthier, less risky, more environmentally friendly, and produced by ‘happier’ cows than conventional milk,” the scientists’ letter said. “Consumers are led to believe that organic milk is better, or that ‘rbST-free’ milk is safer. The truth is quite different, but behind these claims are very powerful corporate interests that know that they can sell the same product at a higher price if they can create doubt or spread fear about conventional milk.”

The letter was coordinated by dairy medicine Prof. John Fetrow of the University of Minnesota and Dairy and Animal Science Department Head Terry D. Etherton of Penn State and signed by leading academics including Dale Bauman of Cornell University in New York, one of the pioneers in studying rBST. They cited a recent study in which more than 200 different samples of conventional, “rBST-free” and organic milk from retail stores across the U.S. were tested by audited procedures and found to have the same nutrient content and identical levels of the estrogen, IGF-1, bST. None contained antibiotics.

“It is easy to scare people by using the word ‘hormone,’ but all milk contains hormones and always has,” the letter said. “The levels of these hormones are the same in whatever milk you drink, and their presence poses no health risk to humans. Vitamin D is a steroid hormone and is added to milk. Milk also contains protein hormones, such as bovine somatotropin (also called bST or bovine growth hormone, BGH) and IGF-1. Both are present in tiny quantities in milk, are digested just like any other protein you eat (steak or tofu), and have no effect in people when eaten.”

The anti-rBST campaign was “particularly deceptive,” it said. “The vague and unsupportable assertions about ‘cancer’ or ‘antibiotic resistance’ (bST is not an antibiotic) are simply not scientifically credible. Oft-repeated smear campaigns can, however, gradually shape the public’s perceptions, and major food corporations understand the power of fear in selling food.”

The scientists asserted that “corporate interests can increase their profits if people fear conventional milk. They can make more money selling ‘rbST-free’ milk at $4/gallon or organic milk at $6/gallon (or more) than by selling conventional milk at $3/gallon, and the majority of that profit differential stays in the corporation’s hands.” The letter singled out Dean Foods, the largest fluid milk marketer, and Whole Foods Markets, the largest organic grocery chain, for financing the Organic Center, which “spreads fear and disinformation about conventional milk and other products of conventional agriculture” and touts products from Dean-owned Horizon Organic and Whole Foods.

The letter was released one week before an Ohio state review committee was to hold a hearing on a new regulation that would restrict “rBST-free” labeling and require a prominent label disclaimer that the milk is no different. It also would mandate record-keeping to verify the claim. The controversy has spread nationwide with Utah also contemplating label restrictions similar to Ohio’s and the legislatures of Missouri and Kansas considering bills to restrict “absence” claims. Pennsylvania proposed but withdrew a similar regulation. It also followed the announcement by Wal-Mart Stores, the leading U.S. food retailer, that it would sell own-label milk from rBST-free cows. Wal-Mart has not said whether it would put a claim on labels. A spokeswoman said only that the retailer was “considering our options on labels.”

Posted with permission.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

SHERRY BUNTING
Published in Farmshine (March 28, 2008 Issue)

Dairymen respond to Wal-Mart’s “Great Value”

Wal-Mart announced this week that its Great Value milk brand now sources milk exclusively from cows not treated with rbST. Milk selections at Sam’s Club are also offered from suppliers sourcing milk from non-supplemented cows.

With this announcement came a report on Wal-Mart’s blogging website, where Rand Waddoups, “author for sustainability” writes about several new “sustainability-related” initiatives at Wal-Mart, including this recent change for Great Value milk.

Rand is a senior director at Wal-Mart, and his biography states that he is “looking after the most exciting thing happening in business today, sustainability.” He is part of a small team, which he writes, is dedicated tobuilding sustainability into every part of Wal-Mart’s business strategy via three future goals: 1) to have zero waste, 2) to use 100% renewable energy, and 3) to bring more sustainable products to customers.

On Wednesday, March 19, Rand posted his article “Great news about Wal-Mart milk,” in which he described the switch to exclusive sourcing of milk from cows not treated with rbST. At the end of every report on the sustainability section of Wal-Mart’s blogging website, people can submit comments, and these comments are logged for all to read. That’s what a blog is (short for web log).

Rand’s report about Great Value milk unleashed a landslide of “blogging” responses. As Farmshine was getting ready for press Wednesday night, the total number of comments had reached a whopping 121 (compared to 3, 10, 56, at most, on all other subjects at the blog) over the course of 8 days. Most of the comments were submitted just on Monday and Tuesday of this week. Out of the 121 comments, only 12 thanked Wal-Mart for their decision to change the milk sourcing.

Four comments were actually questions from consumers asking: Will the milk cost more? How will it be enforced? Are rbST and rbGH the same thing? Will there be a sticker on the milk to let us know we are buying non rbST milk?

The remaining 105 comments (including two duplicates) were articulate, thoughtful responses asking Wal-Mart to look at the big picture, learn the facts about the issue, understand the meaning of sustainability from a planet resources point of view, and they repeatedly asked the retail giant to reconsider their Great Value milk sourcing decision.

These comments were mainly from dairy farmers, wives of dairy farmers, and daughters of dairy farmers. About 20% of these dairy-related comments were from veterinarians, nutritionists, dairy consultants, and university dairy and animal science professors, including Dr. Mike Hutjens at the University of Illinois and Dr. John Fetrow, Professor of Dairy Medicine at the University of Minnesota.

Incidentally, there were at least 10 consumer blogs, which were posted after reading the dairymen’s blogs. These consumers started questioning Wal-Mart’s affordable pricing policy. They also questioned the “sustainability” benefits of this decision in terms of efficiency, population growth, and land resources. One consumer voiced environmental concern about this decision, thinking it might contribute to pulling marginal land out of conservation reserve and into production because reduced efficiency in milk production would be occurring at a time when the biofuels craze is also competing for feed grains.

As a writer, what I found so enlightening in reading through the blog, is that hard working dairy farmers took the time to type their thoughts and let their voices be heard. They didn’t worry about being the best writer or how perfect their spelling would be. They simply overcame any trepidation and spoke from the heart.

Some of the comments included scientific facts, figures, and statistics, but for the most part, the responses were simply sincere voices of reason within a complex issue that has taken on a life of its own. From as few as two-lines of comment to long entries of 10-or more paragraphs, each dairyman and industry partner, who commented on the blog, took advantage of a golden opportunity to be heard, to participate in free market democracy.

Congratulations for speaking your mind! Hats off for taking your message to Wal-Mart and consumers. The bottom line here is that dairy farmers spoke up. Consumers need to hear from farmers on these issues of technology. Otherwise, emotion will rule the day on the present issues and those yet to come.

To read the blog and even add to it, visit Wal-Mart’s special blogging website at www.checkoutblog.com. Then click on “sustainability.”

April Class I Recovers Nearly $2

The April Class I milk base price or “mover” will be $18.61 per hundredweight, representing an increase of $1.91 to recover about two-thirds of the March loss, according to the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service(AMS) announcement last Friday, Mar. 21. The April 2008 price is $3.74 higher than the price of $14.87 for April 2007.

The advance, as expected, came on the heels of stronger butter sales and higher cheese prices, which more than made up for declines in the powdered milk sector (both nonfat dry milk and dry whey).

Advanced prices and pricing factors are based on component prices as reported by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) for only the first two weeks of the previous month (March): Butter $1.2438/lb; Nonfat Dry Milk $1.2537/lb; Cheese $2.0190/lb; and Dry Whey $0.2454/lb.

Market Factors Improve
The above prices used for calculating the April Class I advance price, actually improved a bit more after the two-week cutoff. For example, butter sales continued strong through the holiday last week and cash prices continue to increase, according to USDA AMS Market News.

The NASS Cold Storage Report, issued March 20, showed butter stocks at the end of February were up 8% over last year, after being 26% above year ago at the end of January.

In the cheese sector, prices had declined toward the end of the first two-weeks of the month, which are weeks used in the advanced Class I milk pricing calculation. Cheese prices then rebounded on the cash market at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange through the latter part of March, as export interest continues to factor into the balance of supply and demand. Cheese stocks in cold storage remain 8% below year ago, and reports indicate aging programs are starting to rebuild after being depleted.

In the powder markets during the latter part of March, prices have been firming, up. For example, export demand reportedly continues to help clear the heavy supplies of nonfat dry milk, and dry whey prices are trending a bit higher as supplies become more balanced with current demand.

Fluid production heavy in Southwest

The heavy fluid milk production in the Southwest is increasing due to the good weather conditions. According to USDA AMS Market News, this milk is moving even farther away to find processing capacity.

During February, 9.9 billion pounds of milk were received by the Federal Milk Market Order system, which is 6.3% higher than Feb. 2007, but this leap year had an extra day in the month, which affected the year-over-year comparison.

All market utilization was reported as 37% Class I, 11% Class II, 40% Class III and 12% Class IV. The statistical blend price for February was $18.84 – which was down $1.71 cents from January and $4.14 higher than a year ago.

February’s all-milk price was calculated at $19.30 – $1.20 lower than January and $4.40 higher than Feb. 2007.

The announced U.S. Class I cooperative price for March was reported by USDA AMS at $21.71 compared with $24.63 last month and $18.53 a year ago.

ODA Holds Line on Labeling

The Ohio Department of Agriculture, last week, held the line on the content of the state’s proposed milk labeling law. No changes were made to the original submission of standards, which will now go to the Joint Committee Agency on Rule Review. The Agency will consider the measure this Friday, March 31. The proposed Ohio labeling law is similar to Pennsylvania standards, but goes further in requiring rbST-related claims be followed by a proper disclaimer statement regarding no difference in the milk, and this disclaimer must be of equal size, font, color, and position as the claim.

###

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Posted on Truth About Trade & Technology
April 2, 2008

Sixty-six university dairy and veterinary scientists launched a broad attack Monday against milk processors and retail marketers who increasingly seek to advertise and label milk produced by cows not treated with Monsanto’s recombinant bovine somatotropin. A letter from professors at nearly every major land grant university asserted there was no difference between conventional and “rBST-free” or organic milk but that consumers were being misled by emotional advertising claims to pay higher prices.

“Organic and ‘rBST-free’ milk are routinely advertised as being somehow healthier, less risky, more environmentally friendly, and produced by ‘happier’ cows than conventional milk,” the scientists’ letter said. “Consumers are led to believe that organic milk is better, or that ‘rbST-free’ milk is safer. The truth is quite different, but behind these claims are very powerful corporate interests that know that they can sell the same product at a higher price if they can create doubt or spread fear about conventional milk.”

The letter was coordinated by dairy medicine Prof. John Fetrow of the University of Minnesota and Dairy and Animal Science Department Head Terry D. Etherton of Penn State and signed by leading academics including Dale Bauman of Cornell University in New York, one of the pioneers in studying rBST. They cited a recent study in which more than 200 different samples of conventional, “rBST-free” and organic milk from retail stores across the U.S. were tested by audited procedures and found to have the same nutrient content and identical levels of the estrogen, IGF-1, bST. None contained antibiotics.

“It is easy to scare people by using the word ‘hormone,’ but all milk contains hormones and always has,” the letter said. “The levels of these hormones are the same in whatever milk you drink, and their presence poses no health risk to humans. Vitamin D is a steroid hormone and is added to milk. Milk also contains protein hormones, such as bovine somatotropin (also called bST or bovine growth hormone, BGH) and IGF-1. Both are present in tiny quantities in milk, are digested just like any other protein you eat (steak or tofu), and have no effect in people when eaten.”

The anti-rBST campaign was “particularly deceptive,” it said. “The vague and unsupportable assertions about ‘cancer’ or ‘antibiotic resistance’ (bST is not an antibiotic) are simply not scientifically credible. Oft-repeated smear campaigns can, however, gradually shape the public’s perceptions, and major food corporations understand the power of fear in selling food.”

The scientists asserted that “corporate interests can increase their profits if people fear conventional milk. They can make more money selling ‘rbST-free’ milk at $4/gallon or organic milk at $6/gallon (or more) than by selling conventional milk at $3/gallon, and the majority of that profit differential stays in the corporation’s hands.” The letter singled out Dean Foods, the largest fluid milk marketer, and Whole Foods Markets, the largest organic grocery chain, for financing the Organic Center, which “spreads fear and disinformation about conventional milk and other products of conventional agriculture” and touts products from Dean-owned Horizon Organic and Whole Foods.

The letter was released one week before an Ohio state review committee was to hold a hearing on a new regulation that would restrict “rBST-free” labeling and require a prominent label disclaimer that the milk is no different. It also would mandate record-keeping to verify the claim. The controversy has spread nationwide with Utah also contemplating label restrictions similar to Ohio’s and the legislatures of Missouri and Kansas considering bills to restrict “absence” claims. Pennsylvania proposed but withdrew a similar regulation. It also followed the announcement by Wal-Mart Stores, the leading U.S. food retailer, that it would sell own-label milk from rBST-free cows. Wal-Mart has not said whether it would put a claim on labels. A spokeswoman said only that the retailer was “considering our options on labels.”

Posted with permission.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

SHERRY BUNTING
Published in Farmshine (March 28, 2008 Issue)

Dairymen respond to Wal-Mart’s “Great Value”

Wal-Mart announced this week that its Great Value milk brand now sources milk exclusively from cows not treated with rbST. Milk selections at Sam’s Club are also offered from suppliers sourcing milk from non-supplemented cows.

With this announcement came a report on Wal-Mart’s blogging website, where Rand Waddoups, “author for sustainability” writes about several new “sustainability-related” initiatives at Wal-Mart, including this recent change for Great Value milk.

Rand is a senior director at Wal-Mart, and his biography states that he is “looking after the most exciting thing happening in business today, sustainability.” He is part of a small team, which he writes, is dedicated to building sustainability into every part of Wal-Mart’s business strategy via three future goals: 1) to have zero waste, 2) to use 100% renewable energy, and 3) to bring more sustainable products to customers.

On Wednesday, March 19, Rand posted his article “Great news about Wal-Mart milk,” in which he described the switch to exclusive sourcing of milk from cows not treated with rbST. At the end of every report on the sustainability section of Wal-Mart’s blogging website, people can submit comments, and these comments are logged for all to read. That’s what a blog is (short for web log).

Rand’s report about Great Value milk unleashed a landslide of “blogging” responses. As Farmshine was getting ready for press Wednesday night, the total number of comments had reached a whopping 121 (compared to 3, 10, 56, at most, on all other subjects at the blog) over the course of 8 days. Most of the comments were submitted just on Monday and Tuesday of this week. Out of the 121 comments, only 12 thanked Wal-Mart for their decision to change the milk sourcing.

Four comments were actually questions from consumers asking: Will the milk cost more? How will it be enforced? Are rbST and rbGH the same thing? Will there be a sticker on the milk to let us know we are buying non rbST milk?

The remaining 105 comments (including two duplicates) were articulate, thoughtful responses asking Wal-Mart to look at the big picture, learn the facts about the issue, understand the meaning of sustainability from a planet resources point of view, and they repeatedly asked the retail giant to reconsider their Great Value milk sourcing decision.

These comments were mainly from dairy farmers, wives of dairy farmers, and daughters of dairy farmers. About 20% of these dairy-related comments were from veterinarians, nutritionists, dairy consultants, and university dairy and animal science professors, including Dr. Mike Hutjens at the University of Illinois and Dr. John Fetrow, Professor of Dairy Medicine at the University of Minnesota.

Incidentally, there were at least 10 consumer blogs, which were posted after reading the dairymen’s blogs. These consumers started questioning Wal-Mart’s affordable pricing policy. They also questioned the “sustainability” benefits of this decision in terms of efficiency, population growth, and land resources. One consumer voiced environmental concern about this decision, thinking it might contribute to pulling marginal land out of conservation reserve and into production because reduced efficiency in milk production would be occurring at a time when the biofuels craze is also competing for feed grains.

As a writer, what I found so enlightening in reading through the blog, is that hard working dairy farmers took the time to type their thoughts and let their voices be heard. They didn’t worry about being the best writer or how perfect their spelling would be. They simply overcame any trepidation and spoke from the heart.

Some of the comments included scientific facts, figures, and statistics, but for the most part, the responses were simply sincere voices of reason within a complex issue that has taken on a life of its own. From as few as two-lines of comment to long entries of 10-or more paragraphs, each dairyman and industry partner, who commented on the blog, took advantage of a golden opportunity to be heard, to participate in free market democracy.

Congratulations for speaking your mind! Hats off for taking your message to Wal-Mart and consumers. The bottom line here is that dairy farmers spoke up. Consumers need to hear from farmers on these issues of technology. Otherwise, emotion will rule the day on the present issues and those yet to come.

To read the blog and even add to it, visit Wal-Mart’s special blogging website at www.checkoutblog.com. Then click on “sustainability.”

April Class I Recovers Nearly $2

The April Class I milk base price or “mover” will be $18.61 per hundredweight, representing an increase of $1.91 to recover about two-thirds of the March loss, according to the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service(AMS) announcement last Friday, Mar. 21. The April 2008 price is $3.74 higher than the price of $14.87 for April 2007.

The advance, as expected, came on the heels of stronger butter sales and higher cheese prices, which more than made up for declines in the powdered milk sector (both nonfat dry milk and dry whey).

Advanced prices and pricing factors are based on component prices as reported by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) for only the first two weeks of the previous month (March): Butter $1.2438/lb; Nonfat Dry Milk $1.2537/lb; Cheese $2.0190/lb; and Dry Whey $0.2454/lb.

Market Factors Improve
The above prices used for calculating the April Class I advance price, actually improved a bit more after the two-week cutoff. For example, butter sales continued strong through the holiday last week and cash prices continue to increase, according to USDA AMS Market News.

The NASS Cold Storage Report, issued March 20, showed butter stocks at the end of February were up 8% over last year, after being 26% above year ago at the end of January.

In the cheese sector, prices had declined toward the end of the first two-weeks of the month, which are weeks used in the advanced Class I milk pricing calculation. Cheese prices then rebounded on the cash market at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange through the latter part of March, as export interest continues to factor into the balance of supply and demand. Cheese stocks in cold storage remain 8% below year ago, and reports indicate aging programs are starting to rebuild after being depleted.

In the powder markets during the latter part of March, prices have been firming, up. For example, export demand reportedly continues to help clear the heavy supplies of nonfat dry milk, and dry whey prices are trending a bit higher as supplies become more balanced with current demand.

Fluid production heavy in Southwest

The heavy fluid milk production in the Southwest is increasing due to the good weather conditions. According to USDA AMS Market News, this milk is moving even farther away to find processing capacity.

During February, 9.9 billion pounds of milk were received by the Federal Milk Market Order system, which is 6.3% higher than Feb. 2007, but this leap year had an extra day in the month, which affected the year-over-year comparison.

All market utilization was reported as 37% Class I, 11% Class II, 40% Class III and 12% Class IV. The statistical blend price for February was $18.84 – which was down $1.71 cents from January and $4.14 higher than a year ago.

February’s all-milk price was calculated at $19.30 – $1.20 lower than January and $4.40 higher than Feb. 2007.

The announced U.S. Class I cooperative price for March was reported by USDA AMS at $21.71 compared with $24.63 last month and $18.53 a year ago.

ODA Holds Line on Labeling

The Ohio Department of Agriculture, last week, held the line on the content of the state’s proposed milk labeling law. No changes were made to the original submission of standards, which will now go to the Joint Committee Agency on Rule Review. The Agency will consider the measure this Friday, March 31. The proposed Ohio labeling law is similar to Pennsylvania standards, but goes further in requiring rbST-related claims be followed by a proper disclaimer statement regarding no difference in the milk, and this disclaimer must be of equal size, font, color, and position as the claim.

###

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Posted on Truth About Trade & Technology
April 2, 2008

Sixty-six university dairy and veterinary scientists launched a broad attack Monday against milk processors and retail marketers who increasingly seek to advertise and label milk produced by cows not treated with Monsanto’s recombinant bovine somatotropin. A letter from professors at nearly every major land grant university asserted there was no difference between conventional and “rBST-free” or organic milk but that consumers were being misled by emotional advertising claims to pay higher prices.

“Organic and ‘rBST-free’ milk are routinely advertised as being somehow healthier, less risky, more environmentally friendly, and produced by ‘happier’ cows than conventional milk,” the scientists’ letter said. “Consumers are led to believe that organic milk is better, or that ‘rbST-free’ milk is safer. The truth is quite different, but behind these claims are very powerful corporate interests that know that they can sell the same product at a higher price if they can create doubt or spread fear about conventional milk.”

The letter was coordinated by dairy medicine Prof. John Fetrow of the University of Minnesota and Dairy and Animal Science Department Head Terry D. Etherton of Penn State and signed by leading academics including Dale Bauman of Cornell University in New York, one of the pioneers in studying rBST. They cited a recent study in which more than 200 different samples of conventional, “rBST-free” and organic milk from retail stores across the U.S. were tested by audited procedures and found to have the same nutrient content and identical levels of the estrogen, IGF-1, bST. None contained antibiotics.

“It is easy to scare people by using the word ‘hormone,’ but all milk contains hormones and always has,” the letter said. “The levels of these hormones are the same in whatever milk you drink, and their presence poses no health risk to humans. Vitamin D is a steroid hormone and is added to milk. Milk also contains protein hormones, such as bovine somatotropin (also called bST or bovine growth hormone, BGH) and IGF-1. Both are present in tiny quantities in milk, are digested just like any other protein you eat (steak or tofu), and have no effect in people when eaten.”

The anti-rBST campaign was “particularly deceptive,” it said. “The vague and unsupportable assertions about ‘cancer’ or ‘antibiotic resistance’ (bST is not an antibiotic) are simply not scientifically credible. Oft-repeated smear campaigns can, however, gradually shape the public’s perceptions, and major food corporations understand the power of fear in selling food.”

The scientists asserted that “corporate interests can increase their profits if people fear conventional milk. They can make more money selling ‘rbST-free’ milk at $4/gallon or organic milk at $6/gallon (or more) than by selling conventional milk at $3/gallon, and the majority of that profit differential stays in the corporation’s hands.” The letter singled out Dean Foods, the largest fluid milk marketer, and Whole Foods Markets, the largest organic grocery chain, for financing the Organic Center, which “spreads fear and disinformation about conventional milk and other products of conventional agriculture” and touts products from Dean-owned Horizon Organic and Whole Foods.

The letter was released one week before an Ohio state review committee was to hold a hearing on a new regulation that would restrict “rBST-free” labeling and require a prominent label disclaimer that the milk is no different. It also would mandate record-keeping to verify the claim. The controversy has spread nationwide with Utah also contemplating label restrictions similar to Ohio’s and the legislatures of Missouri and Kansas considering bills to restrict “absence” claims. Pennsylvania proposed but withdrew a similar regulation. It also followed the announcement by Wal-Mart Stores, the leading U.S. food retailer, that it would sell own-label milk from rBST-free cows. Wal-Mart has not said whether it would put a claim on labels. A spokeswoman said only that the retailer was “considering our options on labels.”

Posted with permission.

Permalink

Comments are closed.