Cancéropôle Lyon Rhône-Alpes

John Fetrow VMD, MBA
Professor of Dairy Medicine
College of Veterinary Medicine
University of Minnesota
1365 Gortner Ave.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55108

Terry D. Etherton, Ph.D.
Department Head & Distinguished Professor of Animal Nutrition
Department of Dairy & Animal Science
324 W.L. Henning Bldg
Penn State University
University Park, PA 16802

Milk is probably the most pure, wholesome, safe, highly regulated, inspected, and most carefully handled food that any of us consume. Dairy products provide a wealth of nutrients, including protein, energy, vitamins, and minerals. Even the butterfat in milk contains substances that may reduce cancer risks and help prevent obesity.

Last year, consumers in the US spent $90 billion on dairy products. Organic fluid milk was only 2% of the fluid milk market and was priced significantly higher than conventional milk. 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. 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.

Recently, over 200 different samples of retail milk of all types were purchased in stores from across the nation. In this study, conventional milk, “rbST-free” milk, and organic milk were tested by audited procedures. Within milk fat categories (skim, 1%, 2%, etc.) all samples had the same nutrient content. All had the same levels of the hormones estrogen, IGF-1, and all forms of bST. None contained antibiotics.

It is easy to scare people by using the word “hormone,” but all milk contains hormones and always has. Milk contains progesterone and estrogen, which are steroid hormones. 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. Specifically, the level of BST in milk we consume is the same from all types of dairies, whether they use rbST to increase production in their cows or not.

The anti-bST campaign is particularly deceptive. BST has been used in cows for more than a decade, and there has been no indication of any impact of its use on the milk produced or the health of people who consume the milk. Every major credible health organization around the world that has looked at the issues of bST and food safety, including the American Medical Association, American Pediatrics Association, Health Canada, European Commission, and the FDA, has agreed that milk from rbST-treated cows is the same as any other milk. 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.

Some of the roots of this disinformation effort about milk reach into the board rooms of major corporate players in the food industry. Huge corporate interests can increase their profits if people fear conventional milk. They can make more money selling “rbST-free” milk at $4.00 per gallon or organic milk at $6.00 per gallon (or more) than by selling conventional milk at $3.00 per gallon, and the majority of that profit differential stays in the corporation’s hands. It doesn’t matter that the milk inside the carton is the same, organic, “rbST-free”, or not. Dean Foods, for example, is the nation’s largest fluid milk marketer and had over $10 billion in sales last year. Dean Foods is the parent company for Horizon Organic Milk and White Wave soy “milk”. Whole Foods, the nation’s largest organic grocery corporation, earned $5 billion last year. Both of these corporations make large donations to “public interest” advocacy groups, such as the Organic Center. Probably not coincidentally, the President and Chief Operating Officer of Whole Foods and the General Counsel of Dean Foods sit on the Board of Directors of the Organic Center. The Organic Center, under the guise of serving the public, spreads fear and disinformation about conventional milk and other products of conventional agriculture, and then neatly refers visitors from its web site to other web resources supporting Horizon Organic and Whole Foods.

Support of organic or “rbST-free” milk products may stem from concern about the environment, but the science does not support those positions. Cows given rbST produce more milk. In doing so, their efficiency of production increases and they eat less feed for each gallon of milk they produce. In fact, it takes about 6 to 8% less land to produce milk from cows given rbST. Less land plowed, less fertilizer, less of all of the inputs that go into producing the dairy products consumers enjoy. These cows release less greenhouse gas into the environment per gallon of milk produced, reducing their impact on global warming. This means there is less impact on theenvironment to produce our nation’s milk. In fact, a recently released British government study of organic farming found that in many cases, organic farming was less environmentally friendly than conventional agricultural practices. This was particularly true of milk production. The report concludes, in part, that organic milk requires 80 percent more land per gallon of milk produced, generates 20 percent more carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas), and produces almost double the amount of other byproducts that can lead to acidification of soil and pollution of water.

And what of the claims that organic farms use no antibiotics? Avoiding antibiotics might sound like a good idea, unless you happen to be a sick cow. Conventional farms use antibiotics on a milking cow only if the cow is sick with a serious and treatable bacterial disease. All dairymen avoid using antibiotics when possible to avoid having to throw the cow’s milk away while the cow is on treatment. Milk from treated cows is discarded both during and for a prescribed number of days after treatment to assure that antibiotics do not get into the milk supply. Every shipment of milk from every dairy is tested for major antibiotics before that milk is allowed into the human food system. The milk you buy at the store does not have antibiotics in it, regardless of the type of dairy it came from. Labels that imply otherwise are deceptive and are used only to create mistrust among consumers and to sell more expensive alternatives.

Are cows on organic farms “happier” or healthier? If a cow on an organic dairy needs to be treated for a bacterial disease (infection in her udder, infection in her uterus after calving, pneumonia, etc.), the organic rules say she must be treated and that she can never again be used to produce organic milk. A new dairy cow costs about $2,000. Treating her properly when she is sick on an organic dairy is a major loss. The truth is that some sick cows on organic dairies are left to fend for themselves without treatment, or treatment is delayed until such a time that its effectiveness becomes questionable. Sick cows on organic dairies may be treated with unproven, untested, and questionably effective products with unknown effects on the milk the cow produces. You have to ask yourself just how humane it is to withhold medically proven therapy from a sick cow so that you can continue to sell higher-priced milk to the organic market. Some organic dairies have skirted the high cost of replacing cows that require antibiotics by treating the cow with antibiotics, withholding her milk from distribution, and hoping not to get caught. The truth is that if the “organic” farmer withholds the milk long enough (just like conventional farmers do), there is no way to tell if the organic farmer has used antibiotics, just as there is no way to tell from the milk if a dairy uses rbST or not. The milk is all the same.

Many who pay high prices for organic or “rbST-free” milk do so out of a combination of manipulated fear and/or a genuine concern for the safety of milk, protection of the environment, and welfare of the cow. At best, they have been misinformed. All milk is what it always has been: a wholesome, safe, nutritious product produced by family-owned dairies that care about their cows, their land, and the quality of the product they sell. For those who purchase expensive dairy products, please remember that the premium price paid does not change what is in the package; only the prices are different.

####

This letter has been signed by over 70 additional academic scientists in animal science and veterinary medicine who urge consumers to make informed science-based decisions when purchasing milk.

The following academic scientists are co-signatories of the letter:

Dale E. Bauman
Liberty Hyde Bailey Professor
Cornell University
262 Morrison
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853Brian J. Bequette
Assistant Professor
University of Maryland
4147 Animal Science Building #142
Department of Animal and Avian Sciences
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742James K. Drackley
Professor of Animal Sciences & Nutritional Sciences
Departmentof Animal Sciences
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
260 Animal Sciences Laboratory
1207 West Gregory Drive
Urbana, IL 61801Mike Hutjens
University of Illinois
Department of Animal Sciences
232 Animal Sciences Lab
1207 West Gregory Drive
Urbana, IL 61801James T. Blackford
Professor of Veterinary Medicine
University of Tennessee
UTCVM-LACS
2407 River Dr
Knoxville, TN 37996Kenneth R. Bondioli
Associate Professor
Louisiana State University
Department of Animal Sciences
105 J. B. Francioni Hall
Baton Rouge, LA 70803Jack H. Britt
Executive Vice President (Retired)
University of Tennessee
Jack H Britt
212 Eagle Chase Lane
Etowah, NC 28729-8712Leonard S. Bull
Professor of Animal Science and Associate Director
North Carolina State University
Box 7608 NCSU
Raleigh, NC 27695-7608Kristy H. Campbell
Extension Dairy
Specialist
University of Tennessee
201K McCord Hall
2640 Morgan Circle
Knoxville, TN 37996Judith L. Capper
Department of Animal Science
262 Morrison Hall,
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853Kasey Maddock Carlin
Assistant Professor
North Dakota State UniversityRobert A. Dailey
Professor
Po Box 6108
GO40 Agricultural Sciences
West Virginia University
Morgantown, WV 26506-6108

Fred J. DeGraves
Assistant Professor
The Ohio State University
A100C Sisson Hall
1920 Coffey Road
Columbus, OH 43210-1092J. Lannett Edwards
Dairy Scientist, Associate Professor
University of Tennessee
2505 River Dr.
206 Brehm Animal Science Bldg.
Knoxville, TN 37996-4574Richard A. Erdman
Professor of Animal Science
Animal and Avian Sciences Department
University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland 20742Eric A. Etheridge
DVM, Clinical Instructor, Field Services
University of Tennessee
UTCVM, LACS
2407 River Dr.
Knoxville, TN 37997Hugh Chester Jones
Professor of Dairy and Beef Production Systems
Department of Animal Science
College of Food, Agr & Natural Resource Sciences
University of MinnesotaDave Fischer
University of Illinois
Extension Dairy Educator
200 University Park Drive-Ste. 280
Edwardsville, IL 62025Gene McCoy
University of Illinois
Department Animal Sciences
1207 West Gregory
Urbana, Il. 61801Neal R. Merchen
Professor and Head
Department of Animal Sciences
University of IllinoisRalph J. Farnsworth
Professor
College of Veterinary Medicine
Univ. of Minnesota
St. Paul, MN 55108David T. Galligan
Professor of Animal Health Economics
University of Pennsylvania, School of Vet. Med.Rodney D. Geisert
Director Division of Animal Sciences
University of Missouri
Division of Animal Sciences
S108 Animal Sciences Center
920 East Campus Drive
Columbia, MO 65211-5300Charles L. Guard
Assoc Professor Medicine
Box 29
Veterinary College
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853

William Hansel
Professor of Physiology
Pennington Biomedical Research Center
6400 Perkins Road
Baton Rouge, LA 70808Peter James Hansen
Professor
University of Florida
PO Box 110910
Gainesville FL 32611-0910Ian C. Hart
Professor and Associate Dean
University of Connecticut
CANR, Office of Research and Advanced studies,
1390 Storrs Rd
U-4010
Storrs, CT 06269-4010Gary M. Hay
Professor of Animal/Dairy Science
Louisiana State University
Dairy Science Building
Baton Rouge, LA 70803Paul E. Humes
Director of Animal Sciences
School of Animal Sciences
Louisiana State University
105 Francioni Hall
Baton Rouge, LA 70803Emmett K. Inskeep
Professor
G044 Agricultural Sciences Building
West Virginia University
Morgantown WV 26506-6108Bruce F. Jenny
Professor of Dairy Science
111 Dairy Science Building
School of Animal Sciences
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803Barry W. Jesse
Associate Professor / Associate Dean
Office of Academic Programs and Research
Martin Hall, Room 211
School of Environmental and Biological Sciences
Rutgers, The State University of New JerseyLarry S. Katz
Associate Professor of Animal Science
Rutgers University
84 Lipman Drive
New Brunswick, NJ 08901Duane H. Keisler
Professor of Animal Sciences
University of Missouri
160 Animal Sciences
920 E. Campus Dr
Columbia, MO 65211

David E. Kerr
Associate Professor
213 Terrill Hall
Dept. of Animal Science/Univ. of Vermont
570 Main Street
Burlington, VT 05405James W. Knight
Professor
Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0306Jeffrey Lakritz
Associate Professor
The Ohio State University
601 Vernon L Tharp Street
Columbus, OH 43210Robert D. Linnabary
Staff Veterinarian
Tennessee Department of Agriculture
10515 Eagle Glen Dr.
Knoxville, TN 37922Adam L. Lock
Assistant Professor
University of Vermont
201 Terrill Hall, 570 Main Street
Burlington, VT 05405-0148Alan G. Mathew
Professor and Head
University of Tennessee, Dept of Anima Science
2505 River Drive
Knoxville, TN 37996Donald R. Maynard
Lecturer
University of Vermont
703 Brand Farm Drive
South Burlington, VT 05403Lee R. McDowell
Professor Nutrition
University of FloridaRichard W. Meiring
Associate Professor, Clinical
The Ohio State University
1920 Coffey Road
A196 Sisson Hall
Columbus, OH 43210James D. Murray
Professor
University of California

Kenneth V. Nordlund
Clinical Professor
University of Wisconsin-Madison
School of Veterinary Medicine
2015 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706Thomas R. Overton
Associate Professor of Animal Science
Cornell University
272 Morrison Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853Robert R. Peters
Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist
University of Maryland
Department of Animal and Avian Sciences
College Park, MD 20742-2311Gina M. Pighetti
Associate Professor
University of TennesseeMaria E. Prado
Research Assistant Professor
University of Tennessee
C222 Dept of LACS
2407 River Dr
Knoxville, TN 37996Randall S. Prather
Curators’ Professor
University of Missouri
E125 ASRC
920 East Campus Drive
Columbia, MO 65211Gary W. Rogers
Professorof Animal Science
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN 37996F. Neal Schrick
Professor
University of Tennessee
Department of Animal Science
205 C Brehm Animal Science Bldg
Knoxville, TN 37996John E. Shirley
Professor Emeritus
Kansas State University
1243 Sand Lick Road
Tompkinsville, KY 42167Carla S. Sommardahl
Assistant Professor
University of Tennessee
College of Veterinary Medicine
2407 River Dr.
Knoxville, TN 37996

Barry J. Steevens
State Extension Dairy Specialist
University of Missouri
134 Animal Science Center
University of Missouri
Columbia, MO 65211Jeffrey S. Stevenson
Professor
Kansas State University
Dept. of Animal Sciences
254 Weber Hall
Manhattan, KS 66506-0201Robert L. Stewart
Interim Department Head, Animal and Dairy Science
The University of GeorgiaNormand R. St-Pierre
Professor
The Ohio State University
221 Animal Science Building
2029 Fyffe Ct.
Columbus, OH 43210Robert C. Thaler
Head, Dept of Animal & Range Sciences
South Dakota State University
Box 2170, SDSU
Brookings, SD 57007David L. Thomas
Professor of Animal Sciences
University of Wisconsin-MadisonSarel R van Amstel
Professor
University of Tennessee
College of Veterinary MedicineMark A. Varner
Professor and Extension Dairy Scientist
University of MarylandDr. Paul M. Walker
Professor of Animal Science
Illinois State University
Campus Box 5020
Normal, IL 61790-5020Beth Walker
Assistant Professor
Missouri State University

John R. Welser
Retired, former Dean College Veterinary Medicine
MSU,and Vice President of Agr Research
UpjohnMichael L. Westendorf
Extension Animal Scientist
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
84 Lipman Drive
New Brusnwick, NJ 08901-8525Carey A. Williams
Assistant Professor
Rutgers UniversityCathleen C. Williams
Associate Professor
202 A Dairy Science Bldg.
School of Animal Sciences
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803Milo C. Wiltbank
Professor
University of Wisconsin-Madison
1675 Observatory Drive
Madison, WI 53706Gary L. Williams
Professor, Physiology of Reproduction
Animal Reproduction Laboratory
Texas A&M University
Agricultural Research Station
3507 Hwy 59E
Beeville, TX 78102-8571Richard Wallace
Dairy Extension Veterinarian
College of Veterinary Medicine
University of Illinois
Urbana, IL 61801Mike Hutjens
University of Illinois
Department of Animal Sciences
232 Animal Sciences Lab
1207 West Gregory Drive
Urbana, IL 61801

While we addressed our requests to academics for their support, other
people in the dairy field also signed the letter.

Bryan L. Deimeke
Masters Student
Missouri State UniversityBruce A. Beachnau
Senior Veterinarian
Pfizer Animal Health
8303 Sunfield Hwy.
Portland, MI 48875

Dan DeRuyter
Partner
George DeRuyter and Sons Dairy
PO Box 446
Outlook, WA 98938Walter M. Guterbock, DVM, MS
Manager
den Dulk Dairy
289 SE 11th St.
Hermiston, OR 97838Mary Linda Hearon
Large Animal Supervisor
University of Tennessee College of Veterinary Medicine
2407 River Drive
Knoxville, TN 37996Robert E. Holt
Veterinarian
Mt. Baker Veterinary and ET ServicesRobert Brian House
Beef Specialist, Marketing and Public Relations
Select Sires, Inc.
11740 US 42N
Plain City, OH 43064Harold M. Kemp
Practicing Large Animal Veterinarian
Large Animal Veterinary Service,LLC
42416 Noon Road
Belmont,OH 43718Andrew C. Kolbert
Director of Research and Development
Velcera PharmaceuticalsEmily D. Lamprecht
Graduate Student
Rutgers UniversityDr. James W. Lauderdale
Lauderdale Enterprises, IncKristina M. Lefevre
Research Technician
Select Sires

Kristy M. Longpre
PhD gradute student/teaching assistant
Rutgers UniversityClifton E. Marshall
VP Production
Select Sires
11740 US 42
Plain City, OH 43064Rodney K. McGuffey
Nutritionist
McGuffey Dairy Consulting
1555 Broadway
Indianapolis, IN 46202Anne Marie O’Donnell
Ph.D Student
Cornell UniversityTiffany A. Polanco
Grad student
Rutgers University
59 Dudley Rd
Foran Hall Rm 108
New Brunswick, NJ 08901Joseph P. Shockey
DVM
Bridgewater FarmsPaul E. Shockey
DVM
Town and Country Veterinary ClinicTerri Smith
Sales and Marketing Specialist
Select Sires Inc.Mark Ulrich
Doctor of Veterinary Medicine
Self- employed
5351 Enterprise Rd.
West Alexandria, OH 45381Thomas R Van Dyke
Veterinary Professional Services
Merial LTD
451 Brook St
Damascus, VA 24236

Melvin D. Wenger
DVM
Orrville Veterinary Clinic, incAndy J. Werkhoven
Owner
Werkhoven Dairy Inc.
17829 Tualco loop Rd.
Monroe, WA.98272Jon B. Wheeler
Manager
Oord Dairy
4551 Maple Grove Road
Sunnyside, WA. 98944

See a reprint of this blog post for Foodstuffs.com…

Permalink

Comments are closed.

John Fetrow VMD, MBA
Professor of Dairy Medicine
College of Veterinary Medicine
University of Minnesota
1365 Gortner Ave.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55108

Terry D. Etherton, Ph.D.
Department Head & Distinguished Professor of Animal Nutrition
Department of Dairy & Animal Science
324 W.L. Henning Bldg
Penn State University
University Park, PA 16802

Milk is probably the most pure, wholesome, safe, highly regulated, inspected, and most carefully handled food that any of us consume. Dairy products provide a wealth of nutrients, including protein, energy, vitamins, and minerals. Even the butterfat in milk contains substances that may reduce cancer risks and help prevent obesity.

Last year, consumers in the US spent $90 billion on dairy products. Organic fluid milk was only 2% of the fluid milk market and was priced significantly higher than conventional milk. 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. 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.

Recently, over 200 different samples of retail milk of all types were purchased in stores from across the nation. In this study, conventional milk, “rbST-free” milk, and organic milk were tested by audited procedures. Within milk fat categories (skim, 1%, 2%, etc.) all samples had the same nutrient content. All had the same levels of the hormones estrogen, IGF-1, and all forms of bST. None contained antibiotics.

It is easy to scare people by using the word “hormone,” but all milk contains hormones and always has. Milk contains progesterone and estrogen, which are steroid hormones. 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. Specifically, the level of BST in milk we consume is the same from all types of dairies, whether they use rbST to increase production in their cows or not.

The anti-bST campaign is particularly deceptive. BST has been used in cows for more than a decade, and there has been no indication of any impact of its use on the milk produced or the health of people who consume the milk. Every major credible health organization around the world that has looked at the issues of bST and food safety, including the American Medical Association, American Pediatrics Association, Health Canada, European Commission, and the FDA, has agreed that milk from rbST-treated cows is the same as any other milk. 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.

Some of the roots of this disinformation effort about milk reach into the board rooms of major corporate players in the food industry. Huge corporate interests can increase their profits if people fear conventional milk. They can make more money selling “rbST-free” milk at $4.00 per gallon or organic milk at $6.00 per gallon (or more) than by selling conventional milk at $3.00 per gallon, and the majority of that profit differential stays in the corporation’s hands. It doesn’t matter that the milk inside the carton is the same, organic, “rbST-free”, or not. Dean Foods, for example, is the nation’s largest fluid milk marketer and had over $10 billion in sales last year. Dean Foods is the parent company for Horizon Organic Milk and White Wave soy “milk”. Whole Foods, the nation’s largest organic grocery corporation, earned $5 billion last year. Both of these corporations make large donations to “public interest” advocacy groups, such as the Organic Center. Probably not coincidentally, the President and Chief Operating Officer of Whole Foods and the General Counsel of Dean Foods sit on the Board of Directors of the Organic Center. The Organic Center, under the guise of serving the public, spreads fear and disinformation about conventional milk and other products of conventional agriculture, and then neatly refers visitors from its web site to other web resources supporting Horizon Organic and Whole Foods.

Support of organic or “rbST-free” milk products may stem from concern about the environment, but the science does not support those positions. Cows given rbST produce more milk. In doing so, their efficiency of production increases and they eat less feed for each gallon of milk they produce. In fact, it takes about 6 to 8% less land to produce milk from cows given rbST. Less land plowed, less fertilizer, less of all of the inputs that go into producing the dairy products consumers enjoy. These cows release less greenhouse gas into the environment per gallon of milk produced, reducing their impact on global warming. This means there is less impact on the environment to produce our nation’s milk. In fact, a recently released British government study of organic farming found that in many cases, organic farming was less environmentally friendly than conventional agricultural practices. This was particularly true of milk production. The report concludes, in part, that organic milk requires 80 percent more land per gallon of milk produced, generates 20 percent more carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas), and produces almost double the amount of other byproducts that can lead to acidification of soil and pollution of water.

And what of the claims that organic farms use no antibiotics? Avoiding antibiotics might sound like a good idea, unless you happen to be a sick cow. Conventional farms use antibiotics on a milking cow only if the cow is sick with a serious and treatable bacterial disease. All dairymen avoid using antibiotics when possible to avoid having to throw the cow’s milk away while the cow is on treatment. Milk from treated cows is discarded both during and for a prescribed number of days after treatment to assure that antibiotics do not get into the milk supply. Every shipment of milk from every dairy is tested for major antibiotics before that milk is allowed into the human food system. The milk you buy at the store does not have antibiotics in it, regardless of the type of dairy it came from. Labels that imply otherwise are deceptive and are used only to create mistrust among consumers and to sell more expensive alternatives.

Are cows on organic farms “happier” or healthier? If a cow on an organic dairy needs to be treated for a bacterial disease (infection in her udder, infection in her uterus after calving, pneumonia, etc.), the organic rules say she must be treated and that she can never again be used to produce organic milk. A new dairy cow costs about $2,000. Treating her properly when she is sick on an organic dairy is a major loss. The truth is that some sick cows on organic dairies are left to fend for themselves without treatment, or treatment is delayed until such a time that its effectiveness becomes questionable. Sick cows on organic dairies may be treated with unproven, untested, and questionably effective products with unknown effects on the milk the cow produces. You have to ask yourself just how humane it is to withhold medically proven therapy from a sick cow so that you can continue to sell higher-priced milk to the organic market. Some organic dairies have skirted the high cost of replacing cows that require antibiotics by treating the cow with antibiotics, withholding her milk from distribution, and hoping not to get caught. The truth is that if the “organic” farmer withholds the milk long enough (just like conventional farmers do), there is no way to tell if the organic farmer has used antibiotics, just as there is no way to tell from the milk if a dairy uses rbST or not. The milk is all the same.

Many who pay high prices for organic or “rbST-free” milk do so out of a combination of manipulated fear and/or a genuine concern for the safety of milk, protection of the environment, and welfare of the cow. At best, they have been misinformed. All milk is what it always has been: a wholesome, safe, nutritious product produced by family-owned dairies that care about their cows, their land, and the quality of the product they sell. For those who purchase expensive dairy products, please remember that the premium price paid does not change what is in the package; only the prices are different.

####

This letter has been signed by over 70 additional academic scientists in animal science and veterinary medicine who urge consumers to make informed science-based decisions when purchasing milk.

The following academic scientists are co-signatories of the letter:

Dale E. Bauman
Liberty Hyde Bailey Professor
Cornell University
262 Morrison
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853Brian J. Bequette
Assistant Professor
University of Maryland
4147 Animal Science Building #142
Department of Animal and Avian Sciences
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742James K. Drackley
Professor of Animal Sciences & Nutritional Sciences
Department of Animal Sciences
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
260 Animal Sciences Laboratory
1207 West Gregory Drive
Urbana, IL 61801Mike Hutjens
University of Illinois
Department of Animal Sciences
232 Animal Sciences Lab
1207 West Gregory Drive
Urbana, IL 61801James T. Blackford
Professor of Veterinary Medicine
University of Tennessee
UTCVM-LACS
2407 River Dr
Knoxville, TN 37996Kenneth R. Bondioli
Associate Professor
Louisiana State University
Department of Animal Sciences
105 J. B. Francioni Hall
Baton Rouge, LA 70803Jack H. Britt
Executive Vice President (Retired)
University of Tennessee
Jack H Britt
212 Eagle Chase Lane
Etowah, NC 28729-8712Leonard S. Bull
Professor of Animal Science and Associate Director
North Carolina State University
Box 7608 NCSU
Raleigh, NC 27695-7608Kristy H. Campbell
Extension Dairy
Specialist
University of Tennessee
201K McCord Hall
2640 Morgan Circle
Knoxville, TN 37996Judith L. Capper
Department of Animal Science
262 Morrison Hall,
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853Kasey Maddock Carlin
Assistant Professor
North Dakota State UniversityRobert A. Dailey
Professor
Po Box 6108
GO40 Agricultural Sciences
West Virginia University
Morgantown, WV 26506-6108

Fred J. DeGraves
Assistant Professor
The Ohio State University
A100C Sisson Hall
1920 Coffey Road
Columbus, OH 43210-1092J. Lannett Edwards
Dairy Scientist, Associate Professor
University of Tennessee
2505 River Dr.
206 Brehm Animal Science Bldg.
Knoxville, TN 37996-4574Richard A. Erdman
Professor of Animal Science
Animal and Avian Sciences Department
University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland 20742Eric A. Etheridge
DVM, Clinical Instructor, Field Services
University of Tennessee
UTCVM, LACS
2407 River Dr.
Knoxville, TN 37997Hugh Chester Jones
Professor of Dairy and Beef Production Systems
Department of Animal Science
College of Food, Agr & Natural Resource Sciences
University of MinnesotaDave Fischer
University of Illinois
Extension Dairy Educator
200 University Park Drive-Ste. 280
Edwardsville, IL 62025Gene McCoy
University of Illinois
Department Animal Sciences
1207 West Gregory
Urbana, Il. 61801Neal R. Merchen
Professor and Head
Department of Animal Sciences
University of IllinoisRalph J. Farnsworth
Professor
College of Veterinary Medicine
Univ. of Minnesota
St. Paul, MN 55108David T. Galligan
Professor of Animal Health Economics
University of Pennsylvania, School of Vet. Med.Rodney D. Geisert
Director Division of Animal Sciences
University of Missouri
Division of Animal Sciences
S108 Animal Sciences Center
920 East Campus Drive
Columbia, MO 65211-5300Charles L. Guard
Assoc Professor Medicine
Box 29
Veterinary College
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853

William Hansel
Professor of Physiology
Pennington Biomedical Research Center
6400 Perkins Road
Baton Rouge, LA 70808Peter James Hansen
Professor
University of Florida
PO Box 110910
Gainesville FL 32611-0910Ian C. Hart
Professor and Associate Dean
University of Connecticut
CANR, Office of Research and Advanced studies,
1390 Storrs Rd
U-4010
Storrs, CT 06269-4010Gary M. Hay
Professor of Animal/Dairy Science
Louisiana State University
Dairy Science Building
Baton Rouge, LA 70803Paul E. Humes
Director of Animal Sciences
School of Animal Sciences
Louisiana State University
105 Francioni Hall
Baton Rouge, LA 70803Emmett K. Inskeep
Professor
G044 Agricultural Sciences Building
West Virginia University
Morgantown WV 26506-6108Bruce F. Jenny
Professor of Dairy Science
111 Dairy Science Building
School of Animal Sciences
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803Barry W. Jesse
Associate Professor / Associate Dean
Office of Academic Programs and Research
Martin Hall, Room 211
School of Environmental and Biological Sciences
Rutgers, The State University of New JerseyLarry S. Katz
Associate Professor of Animal Science
Rutgers University
84 Lipman Drive
New Brunswick, NJ 08901Duane H. Keisler
Professor of Animal Sciences
University of Missouri
160 Animal Sciences
920 E. Campus Dr
Columbia, MO 65211

David E. Kerr
Associate Professor
213 Terrill Hall
Dept. of Animal Science/Univ. of Vermont
570 Main Street
Burlington, VT 05405James W. Knight
Professor
Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0306Jeffrey Lakritz
Associate Professor
The Ohio State University
601 Vernon L Tharp Street
Columbus, OH 43210Robert D. Linnabary
Staff Veterinarian
Tennessee Department of Agriculture
10515 Eagle Glen Dr.
Knoxville, TN 37922Adam L. Lock
Assistant Professor
University of Vermont
201 Terrill Hall, 570 Main Street
Burlington, VT 05405-0148Alan G. Mathew
Professor and Head
University of Tennessee, Dept of Anima Science
2505 River Drive
Knoxville, TN 37996Donald R. Maynard
Lecturer
University of Vermont
703 Brand Farm Drive
South Burlington, VT 05403Lee R. McDowell
Professor Nutrition
University of FloridaRichard W. Meiring
Associate Professor, Clinical
The Ohio State University
1920 Coffey Road
A196 Sisson Hall
Columbus, OH 43210James D. Murray
Professor
University of California

Kenneth V. Nordlund
Clinical Professor
University of Wisconsin-Madison
School of Veterinary Medicine
2015 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706Thomas R. Overton
Associate Professor of Animal Science
Cornell University
272 Morrison Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853Robert R. Peters
Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist
University of Maryland
Department of Animal and Avian Sciences
College Park, MD 20742-2311Gina M. Pighetti
Associate Professor
University of TennesseeMaria E. Prado
Research Assistant Professor
University of Tennessee
C222 Dept of LACS
2407 River Dr
Knoxville, TN 37996Randall S. Prather
Curators’ Professor
University of Missouri
E125 ASRC
920 East Campus Drive
Columbia, MO 65211Gary W. Rogers
Professorof Animal Science
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN 37996F. Neal Schrick
Professor
University of Tennessee
Department of Animal Science
205 C Brehm Animal Science Bldg
Knoxville, TN 37996John E. Shirley
Professor Emeritus
Kansas State University
1243 Sand Lick Road
Tompkinsville, KY 42167Carla S. Sommardahl
Assistant Professor
University of Tennessee
College of Veterinary Medicine
2407 River Dr.
Knoxville, TN 37996

Barry J. Steevens
State Extension Dairy Specialist
University of Missouri
134 Animal Science Center
University of Missouri
Columbia, MO 65211Jeffrey S. Stevenson
Professor
Kansas State University
Dept. of Animal Sciences
254 Weber Hall
Manhattan, KS 66506-0201Robert L. Stewart
Interim Department Head, Animal and Dairy Science
The University of GeorgiaNormand R. St-Pierre
Professor
The Ohio State University
221 Animal Science Building
2029 Fyffe Ct.
Columbus, OH 43210Robert C. Thaler
Head, Dept of Animal & Range Sciences
South Dakota State University
Box 2170, SDSU
Brookings, SD 57007David L. Thomas
Professor of Animal Sciences
University of Wisconsin-MadisonSarel R van Amstel
Professor
University of Tennessee
College of Veterinary MedicineMark A. Varner
Professor and Extension Dairy Scientist
University of MarylandDr. Paul M. Walker
Professor of Animal Science
Illinois State University
Campus Box 5020
Normal, IL 61790-5020Beth Walker
Assistant Professor
Missouri State University

John R. Welser
Retired, former Dean College Veterinary Medicine
MSU,and Vice President of Agr Research
UpjohnMichael L. Westendorf
Extension Animal Scientist
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
84 Lipman Drive
New Brusnwick, NJ 08901-8525Carey A. Williams
Assistant Professor
Rutgers UniversityCathleen C. Williams
Associate Professor
202 A Dairy Science Bldg.
School of Animal Sciences
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803Milo C. Wiltbank
Professor
University of Wisconsin-Madison
1675 Observatory Drive
Madison, WI 53706Gary L. Williams
Professor, Physiology of Reproduction
Animal Reproduction Laboratory
Texas A&M University
Agricultural Research Station
3507 Hwy 59E
Beeville, TX 78102-8571Richard Wallace
Dairy Extension Veterinarian
College of Veterinary Medicine
University of Illinois
Urbana, IL 61801Mike Hutjens
University of Illinois
Department of Animal Sciences
232 Animal Sciences Lab
1207 West Gregory Drive
Urbana, IL 61801

While we addressed our requests to academics for their support, other
people in the dairy field also signed the letter.

Bryan L. Deimeke
Masters Student
Missouri State UniversityBruce A. Beachnau
Senior Veterinarian
Pfizer Animal Health
8303 Sunfield Hwy.
Portland, MI 48875

Dan DeRuyter
Partner
George DeRuyter and Sons Dairy
PO Box 446
Outlook, WA 98938Walter M. Guterbock, DVM, MS
Manager
den Dulk Dairy
289 SE 11th St.
Hermiston, OR 97838Mary Linda Hearon
Large Animal Supervisor
University of Tennessee College of Veterinary Medicine
2407 River Drive
Knoxville, TN 37996Robert E. Holt
Veterinarian
Mt. Baker Veterinary and ET ServicesRobert Brian House
Beef Specialist, Marketing and Public Relations
Select Sires, Inc.
11740 US 42N
Plain City, OH 43064Harold M. Kemp
Practicing Large Animal Veterinarian
Large Animal Veterinary Service,LLC
42416 Noon Road
Belmont,OH 43718Andrew C. Kolbert
Director of Research andDevelopment
Velcera PharmaceuticalsEmily D. Lamprecht
Graduate Student
Rutgers UniversityDr. James W. Lauderdale
Lauderdale Enterprises, IncKristina M. Lefevre
Research Technician
Select Sires

Kristy M. Longpre
PhD gradute student/teaching assistant
Rutgers UniversityClifton E. Marshall
VP Production
Select Sires
11740 US 42
Plain City, OH 43064Rodney K. McGuffey
Nutritionist
McGuffey Dairy Consulting
1555 Broadway
Indianapolis, IN 46202Anne Marie O’Donnell
Ph.D Student
Cornell UniversityTiffany A. Polanco
Grad student
Rutgers University
59 Dudley Rd
Foran Hall Rm 108
New Brunswick, NJ 08901Joseph P. Shockey
DVM
Bridgewater FarmsPaul E. Shockey
DVM
Town and Country Veterinary ClinicTerri Smith
Sales and Marketing Specialist
Select Sires Inc.Mark Ulrich
Doctor of Veterinary Medicine
Self- employed
5351 Enterprise Rd.
West Alexandria, OH 45381Thomas R Van Dyke
Veterinary Professional Services
Merial LTD
451 Brook St
Damascus, VA 24236

Melvin D. Wenger
DVM
Orrville Veterinary Clinic, incAndy J. Werkhoven
Owner
Werkhoven Dairy Inc.
17829 Tualco loop Rd.
Monroe, WA.98272Jon B. Wheeler
Manager
Oord Dairy
4551 Maple Grove Road
Sunnyside, WA. 98944

See a reprint of this blog post for Foodstuffs.com…

Permalink

Comments are closed.

John Fetrow VMD, MBA
Professor of Dairy Medicine
College of Veterinary Medicine
University of Minnesota
1365 Gortner Ave.
St. Paul, Minnesota 55108

Terry D. Etherton, Ph.D.
Department Head & Distinguished Professor of Animal Nutrition
Department of Dairy & Animal Science
324 W.L. Henning Bldg
Penn State University
University Park, PA 16802

Milk is probably the most pure, wholesome, safe, highly regulated, inspected, and most carefully handled food that any of us consume. Dairy products provide a wealth of nutrients, including protein, energy, vitamins, and minerals. Even the butterfat in milk contains substances that may reduce cancer risks and help prevent obesity.

Last year, consumers in the US spent $90 billion on dairy products. Organic fluid milk was only 2% of the fluid milk market and was priced significantly higher than conventional milk. 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. 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.

Recently, over 200 different samples of retail milk of all types were purchased in stores from across the nation. In this study, conventional milk, “rbST-free” milk, and organic milk were tested by audited procedures. Within milk fat categories (skim, 1%, 2%, etc.) all samples had the same nutrient content. All had the same levels of the hormones estrogen, IGF-1, and all forms of bST. None contained antibiotics.

It is easy to scare people by using the word “hormone,” but all milk contains hormones and always has. Milk contains progesterone and estrogen, which are steroid hormones. 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. Specifically, the level of BST in milk we consume is the same from all types of dairies, whether they use rbST to increase production in their cows or not.

The anti-bST campaign is particularly deceptive. BST has been used in cows for more than a decade, and there has been no indication of any impact of its use on the milk produced or the health of people who consume the milk. Every major credible health organization around the world that has looked at the issues of bST and food safety, including the American Medical Association, American Pediatrics Association, Health Canada, European Commission, and the FDA, has agreed that milk from rbST-treated cows is the same as any other milk. 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.

Some of the roots of this disinformation effort about milk reach into the board rooms of major corporate players in the food industry. Huge corporate interests can increase their profits if people fear conventional milk. They can make more money selling “rbST-free” milk at $4.00 per gallon or organic milk at $6.00 per gallon (or more) than by selling conventional milk at $3.00 per gallon, and the majority of that profit differential stays in the corporation’s hands. It doesn’t matter that the milk inside the carton is the same, organic, “rbST-free”, or not. Dean Foods, for example, is the nation’s largest fluid milk marketer and had over $10 billion in sales last year. Dean Foods is the parent company for Horizon Organic Milk and White Wave soy “milk”. Whole Foods, the nation’s largest organic grocery corporation, earned $5 billion last year. Both of these corporations make large donations to “public interest” advocacy groups, such as the Organic Center. Probably not coincidentally, the President and Chief Operating Officer of Whole Foods and the General Counsel of Dean Foods sit on the Board of Directors of the Organic Center. The Organic Center, under the guise of serving the public, spreads fear and disinformation about conventional milk and other products of conventional agriculture, and then neatly refers visitors from its web site to other web resources supporting Horizon Organic and Whole Foods.

Support of organic or “rbST-free” milk products may stem from concern about the environment, but the science does not support those positions. Cows given rbST produce more milk. In doing so, their efficiency of production increases and they eat less feed for each gallon of milk they produce. In fact, it takes about 6 to 8% less land to produce milk from cows given rbST. Less land plowed, less fertilizer, less of all of the inputs that go into producing the dairy products consumers enjoy. These cows release less greenhouse gas into the environment per gallon of milk produced, reducing their impact on global warming. This means there is less impact on theenvironment to produce our nation’s milk. In fact, a recently released British government study of organic farming found that in many cases, organic farming was less environmentally friendly than conventional agricultural practices. This was particularly true of milk production. The report concludes, in part, that organic milk requires 80 percent more land per gallon of milk produced, generates 20 percent more carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas), and produces almost double the amount of other byproducts that can lead to acidification of soil and pollution of water.

And what of the claims that organic farms use no antibiotics? Avoiding antibiotics might sound like a good idea, unless you happen to be a sick cow. Conventional farms use antibiotics on a milking cow only if the cow is sick with a serious and treatable bacterial disease. All dairymen avoid using antibiotics when possible to avoid having to throw the cow’s milk away while the cow is on treatment. Milk from treated cows is discarded both during and for a prescribed number of days after treatment to assure that antibiotics do not get into the milk supply. Every shipment of milk from every dairy is tested for major antibiotics before that milk is allowed into the human food system. The milk you buy at the store does not have antibiotics in it, regardless of the type of dairy it came from. Labels that imply otherwise are deceptive and are used only to create mistrust among consumers and to sell more expensive alternatives.

Are cows on organic farms “happier” or healthier? If a cow on an organic dairy needs to be treated for a bacterial disease (infection in her udder, infection in her uterus after calving, pneumonia, etc.), the organic rules say she must be treated and that she can never again be used to produce organic milk. A new dairy cow costs about $2,000. Treating her properly when she is sick on an organic dairy is a major loss. The truth is that some sick cows on organic dairies are left to fend for themselves without treatment, or treatment is delayed until such a time that its effectiveness becomes questionable. Sick cows on organic dairies may be treated with unproven, untested, and questionably effective products with unknown effects on the milk the cow produces. You have to ask yourself just how humane it is to withhold medically proven therapy from a sick cow so that you can continue to sell higher-priced milk to the organic market. Some organic dairies have skirted the high cost of replacing cows that require antibiotics by treating the cow with antibiotics, withholding her milk from distribution, and hoping not to get caught. The truth is that if the “organic” farmer withholds the milk long enough (just like conventional farmers do), there is no way to tell if the organic farmer has used antibiotics, just as there is no way to tell from the milk if a dairy uses rbST or not. The milk is all the same.

Many who pay high prices for organic or “rbST-free” milk do so out of a combination of manipulated fear and/or a genuine concern for the safety of milk, protection of the environment, and welfare of the cow. At best, they have been misinformed. All milk is what it always has been: a wholesome, safe, nutritious product produced by family-owned dairies that care about their cows, their land, and the quality of the product they sell. For those who purchase expensive dairy products, please remember that the premium price paid does not change what is in the package; only the prices are different.

####

This letter has been signed by over 70 additional academic scientists in animal science and veterinary medicine who urge consumers to make informed science-based decisions when purchasing milk.

The following academic scientists are co-signatories of the letter:

Dale E. Bauman
Liberty Hyde Bailey Professor
Cornell University
262 Morrison
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853Brian J. Bequette
Assistant Professor
University of Maryland
4147 Animal Science Building #142
Department of Animal and Avian Sciences
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742James K. Drackley
Professor of Animal Sciences & Nutritional Sciences
Department of Animal Sciences
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
260 Animal Sciences Laboratory
1207 West Gregory Drive
Urbana, IL 61801Mike Hutjens
University of Illinois
Department of Animal Sciences
232 Animal Sciences Lab
1207 West Gregory Drive
Urbana, IL 61801James T. Blackford
Professor of Veterinary Medicine
University of Tennessee
UTCVM-LACS
2407 River Dr
Knoxville, TN 37996Kenneth R. Bondioli
Associate Professor
Louisiana State University
Department of Animal Sciences
105 J. B. Francioni Hall
Baton Rouge, LA 70803Jack H. Britt
Executive Vice President (Retired)
University of Tennessee
Jack H Britt
212 Eagle Chase Lane
Etowah, NC 28729-8712Leonard S. Bull
Professor of Animal Science and Associate Director
North Carolina State University
Box 7608 NCSU
Raleigh, NC 27695-7608Kristy H. Campbell
Extension Dairy
Specialist
University of Tennessee
201K McCord Hall
2640 Morgan Circle
Knoxville, TN 37996Judith L. Capper
Department of Animal Science
262 Morrison Hall,
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853Kasey Maddock Carlin
Assistant Professor
North Dakota State UniversityRobert A. Dailey
Professor
Po Box 6108
GO40 Agricultural Sciences
West Virginia University
Morgantown, WV 26506-6108

Fred J. DeGraves
Assistant Professor
The Ohio State University
A100C Sisson Hall
1920 Coffey Road
Columbus, OH 43210-1092J. Lannett Edwards
Dairy Scientist, Associate Professor
University of Tennessee
2505 River Dr.
206 Brehm Animal Science Bldg.
Knoxville, TN 37996-4574Richard A. Erdman
Professor of Animal Science
Animal and Avian Sciences Department
University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland 20742Eric A. Etheridge
DVM, Clinical Instructor, Field Services
University of Tennessee
UTCVM, LACS
2407 River Dr.
Knoxville, TN 37997Hugh Chester Jones
Professor of Dairy and Beef Production Systems
Department of Animal Science
College of Food, Agr & Natural Resource Sciences
University of MinnesotaDave Fischer
University of Illinois
Extension Dairy Educator
200 University Park Drive-Ste. 280
Edwardsville, IL 62025Gene McCoy
University of Illinois
Department Animal Sciences
1207 West Gregory
Urbana, Il. 61801Neal R. Merchen
Professor and Head
Department of Animal Sciences
University of IllinoisRalph J. Farnsworth
Professor
College of Veterinary Medicine
Univ. of Minnesota
St. Paul, MN 55108David T. Galligan
Professor of Animal Health Economics
University of Pennsylvania, School of Vet. Med.Rodney D. Geisert
Director Division of Animal Sciences
University of Missouri
Division of Animal Sciences
S108 Animal Sciences Center
920 East Campus Drive
Columbia, MO 65211-5300Charles L. Guard
Assoc Professor Medicine
Box 29
Veterinary College
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853

William Hansel
Professor of Physiology
Pennington Biomedical Research Center
6400 Perkins Road
Baton Rouge, LA 70808Peter James Hansen
Professor
University of Florida
PO Box 110910
Gainesville FL 32611-0910Ian C. Hart
Professor and Associate Dean
University of Connecticut
CANR, Office of Research and Advanced studies,
1390 Storrs Rd
U-4010
Storrs, CT 06269-4010Gary M. Hay
Professor of Animal/Dairy Science
Louisiana State University
Dairy Science Building
Baton Rouge, LA 70803Paul E. Humes
Director of Animal Sciences
School of Animal Sciences
Louisiana State University
105 Francioni Hall
Baton Rouge, LA 70803Emmett K. Inskeep
Professor
G044 Agricultural Sciences Building
West Virginia University
Morgantown WV 26506-6108Bruce F. Jenny
Professor of Dairy Science
111 Dairy Science Building
School of Animal Sciences
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803Barry W. Jesse
Associate Professor / Associate Dean
Office of Academic Programs and Research
Martin Hall, Room 211
School of Environmental and Biological Sciences
Rutgers, The State University of New JerseyLarry S. Katz
Associate Professor of Animal Science
Rutgers University
84 Lipman Drive
New Brunswick, NJ 08901Duane H. Keisler
Professor of Animal Sciences
University of Missouri
160 Animal Sciences
920 E. Campus Dr
Columbia, MO 65211

David E. Kerr
Associate Professor
213 Terrill Hall
Dept. of Animal Science/Univ. of Vermont
570 Main Street
Burlington, VT 05405James W. Knight
Professor
Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0306Jeffrey Lakritz
Associate Professor
The Ohio State University
601 Vernon L Tharp Street
Columbus, OH 43210Robert D. Linnabary
Staff Veterinarian
Tennessee Department of Agriculture
10515 Eagle Glen Dr.
Knoxville, TN 37922Adam L. Lock
Assistant Professor
University of Vermont
201 Terrill Hall, 570 Main Street
Burlington, VT 05405-0148Alan G. Mathew
Professor and Head
University of Tennessee, Dept of Anima Science
2505 River Drive
Knoxville, TN 37996Donald R. Maynard
Lecturer
University of Vermont
703 Brand Farm Drive
South Burlington, VT 05403Lee R. McDowell
Professor Nutrition
University of FloridaRichard W. Meiring
Associate Professor, Clinical
The Ohio State University
1920 Coffey Road
A196 Sisson Hall
Columbus, OH 43210James D. Murray
Professor
University of California

Kenneth V. Nordlund
Clinical Professor
University of Wisconsin-Madison
School of Veterinary Medicine
2015 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706Thomas R. Overton
Associate Professor of Animal Science
Cornell University
272 Morrison Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853Robert R. Peters
Professor and Extension Dairy Specialist
University of Maryland
Department of Animal and Avian Sciences
College Park, MD 20742-2311Gina M. Pighetti
Associate Professor
University of TennesseeMaria E. Prado
Research Assistant Professor
University of Tennessee
C222 Dept of LACS
2407 River Dr
Knoxville, TN 37996Randall S. Prather
Curators’ Professor
University of Missouri
E125 ASRC
920 East Campus Drive
Columbia, MO 65211Gary W. Rogers
Professorof Animal Science
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN 37996F. Neal Schrick
Professor
University of Tennessee
Department of Animal Science
205 C Brehm Animal Science Bldg
Knoxville, TN 37996John E. Shirley
Professor Emeritus
Kansas State University
1243 Sand Lick Road
Tompkinsville, KY 42167Carla S. Sommardahl
Assistant Professor
University of Tennessee
College of Veterinary Medicine
2407 River Dr.
Knoxville, TN 37996

Barry J. Steevens
State Extension Dairy Specialist
University of Missouri
134 Animal Science Center
University of Missouri
Columbia, MO 65211Jeffrey S. Stevenson
Professor
Kansas State University
Dept. of Animal Sciences
254 Weber Hall
Manhattan, KS 66506-0201Robert L. Stewart
Interim Department Head, Animal and Dairy Science
The University of GeorgiaNormand R. St-Pierre
Professor
The Ohio State University
221 Animal Science Building
2029 Fyffe Ct.
Columbus, OH 43210Robert C. Thaler
Head, Dept of Animal & Range Sciences
South Dakota State University
Box 2170, SDSU
Brookings, SD 57007David L. Thomas
Professor of Animal Sciences
University of Wisconsin-MadisonSarel R van Amstel
Professor
University of Tennessee
College of Veterinary MedicineMark A. Varner
Professor and Extension Dairy Scientist
University of MarylandDr. Paul M. Walker
Professor of Animal Science
Illinois State University
Campus Box 5020
Normal, IL 61790-5020Beth Walker
Assistant Professor
Missouri State University

John R. Welser
Retired, former Dean College Veterinary Medicine
MSU,and Vice President of Agr Research
UpjohnMichael L. Westendorf
Extension Animal Scientist
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
84 Lipman Drive
New Brusnwick, NJ 08901-8525Carey A. Williams
Assistant Professor
Rutgers UniversityCathleen C. Williams
Associate Professor
202 A Dairy Science Bldg.
School of Animal Sciences
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803Milo C. Wiltbank
Professor
University of Wisconsin-Madison
1675 Observatory Drive
Madison, WI 53706Gary L. Williams
Professor, Physiology of Reproduction
Animal Reproduction Laboratory
Texas A&M University
Agricultural Research Station
3507 Hwy 59E
Beeville, TX 78102-8571Richard Wallace
Dairy Extension Veterinarian
College of Veterinary Medicine
University of Illinois
Urbana, IL 61801Mike Hutjens
University of Illinois
Department of Animal Sciences
232 Animal Sciences Lab
1207 West Gregory Drive
Urbana, IL 61801

While we addressed our requests to academics for their support, other
people in the dairy field also signed the letter.

Bryan L. Deimeke
Masters Student
Missouri State UniversityBruce A. Beachnau
Senior Veterinarian
Pfizer Animal Health
8303 Sunfield Hwy.
Portland, MI 48875

Dan DeRuyter
Partner
George DeRuyter and Sons Dairy
PO Box 446
Outlook, WA 98938Walter M. Guterbock, DVM, MS
Manager
den Dulk Dairy
289 SE 11th St.
Hermiston, OR 97838Mary Linda Hearon
Large Animal Supervisor
University of Tennessee College of Veterinary Medicine
2407 River Drive
Knoxville, TN 37996Robert E. Holt
Veterinarian
Mt. Baker Veterinary and ET ServicesRobert Brian House
Beef Specialist, Marketing and Public Relations
Select Sires, Inc.
11740 US 42N
Plain City, OH 43064Harold M. Kemp
Practicing Large Animal Veterinarian
Large Animal Veterinary Service,LLC
42416 Noon Road
Belmont,OH 43718Andrew C. Kolbert
Director of Research and Development
Velcera PharmaceuticalsEmily D. Lamprecht
Graduate Student
Rutgers UniversityDr. James W. Lauderdale
Lauderdale Enterprises, IncKristina M. Lefevre
Research Technician
Select Sires

Kristy M. Longpre
PhD gradute student/teaching assistant
Rutgers UniversityClifton E. Marshall
VP Production
Select Sires
11740 US 42
Plain City, OH 43064Rodney K. McGuffey
Nutritionist
McGuffey Dairy Consulting
1555 Broadway
Indianapolis, IN 46202Anne Marie O’Donnell
Ph.D Student
Cornell UniversityTiffany A. Polanco
Grad student
Rutgers University
59 Dudley Rd
Foran Hall Rm 108
New Brunswick, NJ 08901Joseph P. Shockey
DVM
Bridgewater FarmsPaul E. Shockey
DVM
Town and Country Veterinary ClinicTerri Smith
Sales and Marketing Specialist
Select Sires Inc.Mark Ulrich
Doctor of Veterinary Medicine
Self- employed
5351 Enterprise Rd.
West Alexandria, OH 45381Thomas R Van Dyke
Veterinary Professional Services
Merial LTD
451 Brook St
Damascus, VA 24236

Melvin D. Wenger
DVM
Orrville Veterinary Clinic, incAndy J. Werkhoven
Owner
Werkhoven Dairy Inc.
17829 Tualco loop Rd.
Monroe, WA.98272Jon B. Wheeler
Manager
Oord Dairy
4551 Maple Grove Road
Sunnyside, WA. 98944

See a reprint of this blog post for Foodstuffs.com…

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Cyndi Young
Brownfield Ag News
Published in Illinois AgriNews (April 17, 2008)

A release I came across in my computer inbox the other day promoted the establishment of a new brand of milk. Not only does this milk come from happy cows, but from socially responsible dairy farms.

It appears that “socially responsible” has replaced “politically correct” as the buzz phrase of choice in many circles.

I am all for producers finding niche markets. Many farmers growing corn and soybeans in the Illinois River bottoms are cashing in on premiums for non-GMO crops grown for export. Proximity to river terminal markets allows easier access to the transportation vehicle that will take the product to those who are willing to pay a premium for it.

These farmers are producing a product for a narrowly defined group of potential customers. They are not avoiding biotechnology because they have to, but because they have found a market that is not supplied by mainstream providers.

Just the word biotechnology associated with food scares the pants off of some people. Terry Etherton, who heads up the Department of Dairy and Animal Science at Penn State University, told me it’s not really about the science, but about an individual’s perception of the value of a product.

“Biotechnology is simply the use of biology to produce some product, good or service to benefit society,” Terry explained. “Bread and wine making are uses of biotechnology.”

People rave about the science used for biomedical purposes. Terry Etherton is right. It’s not really about the science. It’s about perception of value. That perception could be swayed by a seed of misinformation planted by an anti-agriculture group. Another scenario Terry described: “A lot of us have had a jolting experience in a science course somewhere along the line so it’s not their favorite topic.”

And finally, Terry told me, “The scientific community - researchers specifically - are more concerned about publishing their papers in the Scientific Journal than they are in explaining what they are doing, how it is important to society and how it might benefit society.”

He says this speaks to the issue of better developing and delivering science education programs to the public, which has not been done in an effective manner. When people have imbedded value systems and beliefs, it is very challenging to modify their behavior.

“A large scale populationeducation program for anything is really, really expensive,” he explained.

I understand value systems. I understand beliefs. What I don’t get is how, with a clear conscience, some in the dairy processing industry can so quickly use misperceptions about biotechnology against the dairy farmers who have partnered with them for years.

As Terry Etherton explained to me, some in the dairy processing industry are using words like “artificial hormones” to scare consumers into believing that milk produced without the use of supplemental bovine somatotropin (rBST) is better than milk produced with it.

“The TRUTH is, all milk is the same within a fat class. All milk contains lots of hormones. There is no difference between organic and conventional milk.”

Terry calls it a deceptive marketing campaign that has resulted in a lot of money being made at retail that is not being shared with the producers.

“The processors want rBST-free milk. Most recent price data from the American Farm Bureau Federation found that the retail mark -up differential is $22.50 per hundredweight when you compare conventional versus rBST free milk,” he said. “There are producers being forced into situations where they cannot use supplemental BST because co-ops have been pushed by processors upstream.”

Terry said well-conducted surveys show that consumers want to buy cheap milk. This is not about what the consumers want. I know producers who are being forced to sign affidavits saying they will not use the technology or their milk will not be picked up. In many situations, producers only have one option to sell their milk.

As a man of science, Terry Etherton is perplexed by this campaign against rBST.

“Bovine somatotropin has no biological effect in humans. It is not recognized by human cells.” Beyond that, says Etherton, “You’re talking about a molecule that is present in all milk whether it is conventional or organic or BST free at the same level and treatment doesn’t change it. Since it is a protein, it is digested like all other proteins. It doesn’t matter if it is green bean protein or milk protein. Most of the milk sold in this country is pasteurized, and the heat in that process renders BST inactive anyway!”

I have heard so many rumors about rBST that it makes my head swim. There is no merit to the myth that it causes cancer and it is not banned in any of these United States. It does not cause cows to “burn out.”

If farmers want to produce a product for a niche market, more power to ‘em. Give them a piece of the premium. The current system of forcing producers to give up a risk management tool that has been safe and effective since its introduction in the U.S. 14 years ago just doesn’t seem fair to me.

Posted with permission.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Cyndi Young
Brownfield Ag News
Published in Illinois AgriNews (April 17, 2008)

A release I came across in my computer inbox the other day promoted the establishment of a new brand of milk. Not only does this milk come from happy cows, but from socially responsible dairy farms.

It appears that “socially responsible” has replaced “politically correct” as the buzz phrase of choice in many circles.

I am all for producers finding niche markets. Many farmers growing corn and soybeans in the Illinois River bottoms are cashing in on premiums for non-GMO crops grown for export. Proximity to river terminal markets allows easier access to the transportation vehicle that will take the product to those who are willing to pay a premium for it.

These farmers are producing a product for a narrowly defined group of potential customers. They are not avoiding biotechnology because they have to, but because they have found a market that is not supplied by mainstream providers.

Just the word biotechnology associated with food scares the pants off of some people. Terry Etherton, who heads up the Department of Dairy and Animal Science at Penn State University, told me it’s not really about the science, but about an individual’s perception of the value of a product.

“Biotechnology is simply the use of biology to produce some product, good or service to benefit society,” Terry explained. “Bread and wine making are uses of biotechnology.”

People rave about the science used for biomedical purposes. Terry Etherton is right. It’s not really about the science. It’s about perception of value. That perception could be swayed by a seed of misinformation planted by an anti-agriculture group. Another scenario Terry described: “A lot of us have had a jolting experience in a science course somewhere along the line so it’s not their favorite topic.”

And finally, Terry told me, “The scientific community - researchers specifically - are more concerned about publishing their papers in the Scientific Journal than they are in explaining what they are doing, how it is important to society and how it might benefit society.”

He says this speaks to the issue of better developing and delivering science education programs to the public, which has not been done in an effective manner. When people have imbedded value systems and beliefs, it is very challenging to modify their behavior.

“A large scale populationeducation program for anything is really, really expensive,” he explained.

I understand value systems. I understand beliefs. What I don’t get is how, with a clear conscience, some in the dairy processing industry can so quickly use misperceptions about biotechnology against the dairy farmers who have partnered with them for years.

As Terry Etherton explained to me, some in the dairy processing industry are using words like “artificial hormones” to scare consumers into believing that milk produced without the use of supplemental bovine somatotropin (rBST) is better than milk produced with it.

“The TRUTH is, all milk is the same within a fat class. All milk contains lots of hormones. There is no difference between organic and conventional milk.”

Terry calls it a deceptive marketing campaign that has resulted in a lot of money being made at retail that is not being shared with the producers.

“The processors want rBST-free milk. Most recent price data from the American Farm Bureau Federation found that the retail mark -up differential is $22.50 per hundredweight when you compare conventional versus rBST free milk,” he said. “There are producers being forced into situations where they cannot use supplemental BST because co-ops have been pushed by processors upstream.”

Terry said well-conducted surveys show that consumers want to buy cheap milk. This is not about what the consumers want. I know producers who are being forced to sign affidavits saying they will not use the technology or their milk will not be picked up. In many situations, producers only have one option to sell their milk.

As a man of science, Terry Etherton is perplexed by this campaign against rBST.

“Bovine somatotropin has no biological effect in humans. It is not recognized by human cells.” Beyond that, says Etherton, “You’re talking about a molecule that is present in all milk whether it is conventional or organic or BST free at the same level and treatment doesn’t change it. Since it is a protein, it is digested like all other proteins. It doesn’t matter if it is green bean protein or milk protein. Most of the milk sold in this country is pasteurized, and the heat in that process renders BST inactive anyway!”

I have heard so many rumors about rBST that it makes my head swim. There is no merit to the myth that it causes cancer and it is not banned in any of these United States. It does not cause cows to “burn out.”

If farmers want to produce a product for a niche market, more power to ‘em. Give them a piece of the premium. The current system of forcing producers to give up a risk management tool that has been safe and effective since its introduction in the U.S. 14 years ago just doesn’t seem fair to me.

Posted with permission.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Cyndi Young
Brownfield Ag News
Published in Illinois AgriNews (April 17, 2008)

A release I came across in my computer inbox the other day promoted the establishment of a new brand of milk. Not only does this milk come from happy cows, but from socially responsible dairy farms.

It appears that “socially responsible” has replaced “politically correct” as the buzz phrase of choice in many circles.

I am all for producers finding niche markets. Many farmers growing corn and soybeans in the Illinois River bottoms are cashing in on premiums for non-GMO crops grown for export. Proximity to river terminal markets allows easier access to the transportation vehicle that will take the product to those who are willing to pay a premium for it.

These farmers are producing a product for a narrowly defined group of potential customers. They are not avoiding biotechnology because they have to, but because they have found a market that is not supplied by mainstream providers.

Just the word biotechnology associated with food scares the pants off of some people. Terry Etherton, who heads up the Department of Dairy and Animal Science at Penn State University, told me it’s not really about the science, but about an individual’s perception of the value of a product.

“Biotechnology is simply the use of biology to produce some product, good or service to benefit society,” Terry explained. “Bread and wine making are uses of biotechnology.”

People rave about the science used for biomedical purposes. Terry Etherton is right. It’s not really about the science. It’s about perception of value. That perception could be swayed by a seed of misinformation planted by an anti-agriculture group. Another scenario Terry described: “A lot of us have had a jolting experience in a science course somewhere along the line so it’s not their favorite topic.”

And finally, Terry told me, “The scientific community - researchers specifically - are more concerned about publishing their papers in the Scientific Journal than they are in explaining what they are doing, how it is important to society and how it might benefit society.”

He says this speaks to the issue of better developing and delivering science education programs to the public, which has not been done in an effective manner. When people have imbedded value systems and beliefs, it is very challenging to modify their behavior.

“A large scale population education program for anything is really, really expensive,” he explained.

I understand value systems. I understand beliefs. What I don’t get is how, with a clear conscience, some in the dairy processing industry can so quickly use misperceptions about biotechnology against the dairy farmers who have partnered with them for years.

As Terry Etherton explained to me, some in the dairy processing industry are using words like “artificial hormones” to scare consumers into believing that milk produced without the use of supplemental bovine somatotropin (rBST) is better than milk produced with it.

“The TRUTH is, all milk is the same within a fat class. All milk contains lots of hormones. There is no difference between organic and conventional milk.”

Terry calls it a deceptive marketing campaign that has resulted in a lot of money being made at retail that is not being shared with the producers.

“The processors want rBST-free milk. Most recent price data from the American Farm Bureau Federation found that the retail mark -up differential is $22.50 per hundredweight when you compare conventional versus rBST free milk,” he said. “There are producers being forced into situations where they cannot use supplemental BST because co-ops have been pushed by processors upstream.”

Terry said well-conducted surveys show that consumers want to buy cheap milk. This is not about what the consumers want. I know producers who are being forced to sign affidavits saying they will not use the technology or their milk will not be picked up. In many situations, producers only have one option to sell their milk.

As a man of science, Terry Etherton is perplexed by this campaign against rBST.

“Bovine somatotropin has no biological effect in humans. It is not recognized by human cells.” Beyond that, says Etherton, “You’re talking about a molecule that is present in all milk whether it is conventional or organic or BST free at the same level and treatment doesn’t change it. Since it is a protein, it is digested like all other proteins. It doesn’t matter if it is green bean protein or milk protein. Most of the milk sold in this country is pasteurized, and the heat in that process renders BST inactive anyway!”

I have heard so many rumors about rBST that it makes my head swim. There is no merit to the myth that it causes cancer and it is not banned in any of these United States. It does not cause cows to “burn out.”

If farmers want to produce a product for a niche market, more power to ‘em. Give them a piece of the premium. The current system of forcing producers to give up a risk management tool that has been safe and effective since its introduction in the U.S. 14 years ago just doesn’t seem fair to me.

Posted with permission.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Dave Natzke
Published in Midwest Dairy Business (February 2008)

The buzzword at the International Dairy Foods Association’s Dairy Forum ’08 was “sustainability.” While the word gives everyone a warm and fuzzy feeling they’re doing something – anything – to make the world a better place to live, the definition of “sustainability” can be elusive and confusing. Many Dairy Forum speakers used the term to cover environmental and social aspects of milk and dairy product production, packaging and transportation.

While such goals are admirable and, like objects in our rearview mirror – closer than they appear – one of the messages I took home was that everyone needed to jump on the bandwagon, not only to be good global citizens, but also to capture the “value-added” premiums the marketplace is apparently willing to pay for a “sustainable” label.

Hey, I’m a capitalist, and if it ended there, great. But it doesn’t. While many find “sustainability” hard to define, they are sure they know it when they see it. Many of these same people want to impose their enlightened vision of “sustainability” on others. In many cases, the inconvenient truth is that the push for “sustainability” has more to do with market share than it does with being environmentally and socially conscious.

As I write this, there is an outgrowth of this dilemma. Under pressure to be more “sustainable,” several universities are in the “Catch-22” position of losing commercial markets – and much-needed funding from the sale of milk or crops – or give up researching approved technologies. Who wins there?

No doubt about it, we can all do better when it comes to caring for the present and future condition of our planet. But when it comes to “sustainability,” I left the Dairy Forum with some unanswered questions:

• Where does the balance of efficient, economic production – using available knowledge and applying technology to produce food in quantities to feed a world population rushing headlong toward 7 billion people – fit in our definition of “sustainability?”
• Isn’t that what modern agriculture is about – sustaining life in a responsible manner?

Speaking of questions, one of the fundamental questions of any geographically based industry is this: once weakened or lost, can it be regained? In my lifetime, that question has arisen in Detroit’s auto industry and across steel country – now the Rust Belt. It is also a question faced by the Midwest dairy industry in the 1990s, as investment, cows and young brilliant minds moved elsewhere. In some cases, dairy producers were unable to sustain against activists with a different vision of animal agriculture and the regional geography. That impact was probably felt nowhere more so than Minnesota.

Can the Midwest dairy industry be sustained and grow? That remains to be seen. Years ago, I probably would have said “no.” But as Minnesota Milk Producers Association executive director Bob Lefebvre details in the February 2008 issue of Midwest DairyBusiness (see “A change from within”), it takes more than changing downward spirals in cows and infrastructure, but also a change in mindset and leadership, before it’s too late. It’s happening in the Midwest.

We’re in a dairy era some say has a “triple bottom line” – economic, environmental and social. Whether for the sake of future food production, or the health of a regional dairy industry, the only sustainable “sustainability” is built on practicality; not on a single definition, and not in a rush for market share based on whatever social tail that is wagging the dog.

Posted with permission.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

Dave Natzke
Published in Midwest Dairy Business (April 2008)

More vertical integration, what many consider the “evil empire” afflicting segments of food production, is headed toward dairy. As in other industries, most vertical integration pressure will come from the top down, in an effort to squeeze as much money out of incremental margins as possible. But in an evolving business climate, I think more dairy pressure will ultimately come from the bottom up.

As I mentioned previously (February 2008 Midwest DairyBusiness, “Who’s sustaining what?”), I attended the International Dairy Foods Association Dairy Forum ’08. I wish I would have counted how many times I heard the comment – or a variation of it – from a speaker who said “it is the responsibility of the cooperative/processor/marketer/retailer to protect the perception of the consumer.” It’s pretty tough to build a case against that comment, since consumers ultimately pay the bills and, if you believe conventional wisdom, “the consumer is always right” (purchasing imitation pet testicles for their neutered pets’ self esteem, aside).

Disheartening in my conversations was not once did I hear a single comment claiming any responsibility to protect the integrity and livelihood of the supplier/producer. I asked. That’s troubling at a time when producers are being attacked on so many fronts, especially in animal welfare, production technology and environmental areas.

The checkoff-funded Midwest Dairy Association and others are creating tools to “promote” producers. Some small dairy companies base their entire marketing programs on producer integrity. But many others have focused so hard on the products that they have lost sight of producers and, in my 30 years in ag journalism, I have never heard from so many producers who believe they are being hung out to dry by their business and organization leaders. I guess it’s a cruel world.

So my first case for more bottoms-up vertical integration is that, if those on top are throwing you under the bus, why not get your own bus?

Second, playing into bottoms-up vertical integration is the emerging trend of consumers seeking locally sourced food from someone they know and trust. Numerous studies show farmers rank among the highest on the consumers’ reputation meter. What better way to put a face on a product than to put your face on your product?

Third, each step in the food chain – from production of the raw product to processing, packaging, marketing and transporting – adds value, costs and friction. As producers become more savvy marketers and are able to manage volume processing and packaging, it enables them to embrace those steps, instead of outsourcing them.

That ties in with a final ingredient – capital. Many “artisans” strive to make a direct connection to consumers on a small scale, but often lack the financial resources. As larger producers combine knowledge with capital, vertical integration becomes possible. Throw in the ability to reduce transportation costs and generate energy from manure, and the path becomes even smoother, with social and environmental pluses.

There are reasons why processing, packaging and marketing have become specialized. It’s a tough business, compounded by competition, policies and regulations at every level. Bottoms-up vertical integration takes work and money, and undoubtedly many will fail. It adds risks at every level. There are business cemeteries full of people who have already tried. It will take the right people, with the right products, in the right markets.

But I’m hearing from more entrepreneurs who, when push comes to shove, would rather press their noses up against their own bottoms, and not against someone else’s.

Posted with permission.

Permalink

Comments are closed.

buyers-beware

Permalink

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Dave Natzke
Published in Midwest Dairy Business (February 2008)

The buzzword at the International Dairy Foods Association’s Dairy Forum ’08 was “sustainability.” While the word gives everyone a warm and fuzzy feeling they’re doing something – anything – to make the world a better place to live, the definition of “sustainability” can be elusive and confusing. Many Dairy Forum speakers used the term to cover environmental and social aspects of milk and dairy product production, packaging and transportation.

While such goals are admirable and, like objects in our rearview mirror – closer than they appear – one of the messages I took home was that everyone needed to jump on the bandwagon, not only to be good global citizens, but also to capture the “value-added” premiums the marketplace is apparently willing to pay for a “sustainable” label.

Hey, I’m a capitalist, and if it ended there, great. But it doesn’t. While many find “sustainability” hard to define, they are sure they know it when they see it. Many of these same people want to impose their enlightened vision of “sustainability” on others. In many cases, the inconvenient truth is that the push for “sustainability” has more to do with market share than it does with being environmentally and socially conscious.

As I write this, there is an outgrowth of this dilemma. Under pressure to be more “sustainable,” several universities are in the “Catch-22” position of losing commercial markets – and much-needed funding from the sale of milk or crops – or give up researching approved technologies. Who wins there?

No doubt about it, we can all do better when it comes to caring for the present and future condition of our planet. But when it comes to “sustainability,” I left the Dairy Forum with some unanswered questions:

• Where does the balance of efficient, economic production – using available knowledge and applying technology to produce food in quantities to feed a world population rushing headlong toward 7 billion people – fit in our definition of “sustainability?”
• Isn’t that what modern agriculture is about – sustaining life in a responsible manner?

Speaking of questions, one of the fundamental questions of any geographically based industry is this: once weakened or lost, can it be regained? In my lifetime, that question has arisen in Detroit’s auto industry and across steel country – now the Rust Belt. It is also a question faced by the Midwest dairy industry in the 1990s, as investment, cows and young brilliant minds moved elsewhere. In some cases, dairy producers were unable to sustain against activists with a different vision of animal agriculture and the regional geography. That impact was probably felt nowhere more so than Minnesota.

Can the Midwest dairy industry be sustained and grow? That remains to be seen. Years ago, I probably would have said “no.” But as Minnesota Milk Producers Association executive director Bob Lefebvre details in the February 2008 issue of Midwest DairyBusiness (see “A change from within”), it takes more than changing downward spirals in cows and infrastructure, but also a change in mindset and leadership, before it’s too late. It’s happening in the Midwest.

We’re in a dairy era some say has a “triple bottom line” – economic, environmental and social. Whether for the sake of future food production, or the health of a regional dairy industry, the only sustainable “sustainability” is built on practicality; not on a single definition, and not in a rush for market share based on whatever social tail that is wagging the dog.

Posted with permission.

Permalink

Comments are closed.