This month the dairy industry is center stage as milk steps on to the world stage as part of the greatest spectacle in racing, the Indianapolis 500. The coveted Fastest Rookie Award is sponsored by dairy farmers; and, in Victory Lane the famous drink of milk will capture worldwide attention. Yet, a growing number of consumers are afraid to drink milk, and unscrupulous marketers and anti-science activists are manipulating that fear for their own gain.

The issue is rBST, a product used by dairy producers to boost production. Produced with biotechnology, this product has been scientifically proven safe for both humans and dairy cows and has been in use for over a decade. Yet a political and public relations battle is raging up and down the east coast between milk produced with rBST and milk produced without rBST. This controversy has divided the dairy industry and confused consumers. It threatens to ruin the reputation milk has as a wholesome and safe product.

In a recent commentary, Dean Kleckner, with Truth About Trade and Technology, asserted that most consumers don’t know what rBST is. So when they see a label on a carton of milk that says

“rBST Free,” they become confused and afraid. With two cartons of milk in a dairy case and one labeled rBST Free, the implication is that the one has rBST and the other does not. A natural reaction by a shopper, who is clueless about what rBST is, would be to avoid the milk with rBST just to be safe.

So what is wrong with this? Plenty, since the milk in both cartons is exactly the same. There is no detectable difference between the two.

It is just that one cow had something in her feed that another did not. Yet, the rBST Free label implies there is a meaningful difference. Kleckner points out that it comes down to the fear of the unknown. Opponents of rBST use the fear of the unknown argument when confronted with scientific fact.

They counter by saying, “We don’t know what the long term effects are.” Thus, since we don’t know, we should be afraid.

I am not taking a position for or against the use of rBST in milk production. What I am concerned about is putting labels on food products that say they are different when in reality they are not.

We do not list what breed of cow a carton of milk came from, nor do we list on a loaf of bread what kind of farm equipment was used to harvest the wheat.

This imagined difference is having big economic consequences.
Safeway and Starbucks have announced they are not buying milk produced with rBST. Adding to the hypocrisy is the fact that corporations say one thing publicly and do another privately. For example, Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream is one of the most outspoken critics of biotechnology. Yet their parent company, Unilever, has started making their low fat ice cream with a substance made by genetically modified yeast. Since this yeast is removed from the product before packaging the ice cream does not carry a label saying made with genetically modified products.

If products are different in taste, texture, nutrition, chemical composition or other measurable ways, then a label stating the facts is appropriate. If we start using food labels to manipulate or misinform, we will lose the trust and confidence of the consuming public.

Readers with questions or comments for Gary Truitt may write to him in care of this publication.

This farm news was published in the May 16, 2007 issue of Farm World, serving Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee.