MOUNT VERNON — After months of controversy, the issue of “absence-labeling” milk to identify production without artificial hormones is going to the state legislature in Columbus. The issue arose after some large retail chains, including Kroger, began requesting such labels from suppliers in response to perceived customer wishes.
The labels typically state that the milk is produced “without rbST.” The acronym rbST stands for recombinant bovine somatotropin, a naturally occurring milk-production hormone in cattle that is duplicated in a process patented by agriculture industry giant Monsanto and introduced into cows to boost the amount of milk the animals produce. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has declared usage of rbST safe, and it has been in use now for 15 years, with many dairy farmers hailing it as technology that has allowed them to keep competitive in a challenging economy. Opponents have expressed doubts about the artificial use of the hormone on both public safety and ethical grounds.
Last fall, the issue was brought to a head when the Ohio Department of Agriculture announced the formation of a review committee to look at the situation and make an advisory statement after holding public hearings. After the committee recommended implementation of verbiage to state that there was “no significant difference” between rbST-supplemented milk and non-rbST-supplemented milk, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland signed an executive order in February, issuing an emergency rule prohibiting “the mislabeling of dairy products” and defining what constitutes false and misleading labels for dairy products.
“Our number one goal is to provide consumers with safe and healthy foods, and to offer clear and consistent information about the food consumers purchase,” said ODA Director Robert Boggs.
Joe Logan, who recently ended a term as president of the Ohio Farmers Union, felt that the ruling does the opposite.
“Frankly, we believe that really concise statements such as “rbST-free” are meaningful to those consumers who have an interest in this,” Logan said.
He said such statements ought to be allowed to be presented on milk cartons in stores. He said that OFU has gotten some mixed messages from the state about whether or not the suggested additional verbiage will be mandatory or whether there will be some flexibility.
David White of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation said his organization supported the use of the additional verbiage.
“Currently, dairy producers are not protected from having their product disparaged through labeling; and because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration unfortunately chose to leave labeling decisions up to each state, it is vital that the Department of Agriculture step in to protect Ohio’s dairy producers,” White said.
In testimony given to the ODA on March 12, OFBF executive Vice President Jack Fisher said his organization believed that ODA and its dairy division should require that all dairy product labels must be able to substantiate their claims through sound scientific testing. There is no current test which can distinguish between rbST-supplemented milk and milk that doesn’t use the hormone boost.
“Milk-marketers who claim that an absence of farming technology is a positive thing are fooling themselves and their customers,” Fisher testified, adding that this technology allows the production of more milk from fewer cows, providing cheap and safe food with a small carbon footprint.
Caren Wilcox, executive director of the Organic Trade Association, also testified to ODA, drawing attention to the issue of interstate shipping, and how such labels might negatively impact organic milk sales.
“We hope that Ohio recognizes that there needs to be uniformity and consistency between states and regions relative to organic,” Wilcox said in her testimony. She said the proposed rule could do exactly the opposite, creating a series of confusing restrictions on truthful organic labeling. Wilcox said the recommended verbiage was misleading.
The label issue will now pass on to the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review, which will hold a public hearing and approve or revise the recommended policy by March 31. After that, the issue will move to the floor of a legislature for a vote.