|
|
|
| Terry was an "expert" accompanying Dennis Wolff, Penn State Board of Directors and Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture on a "farmer mobilization" campaign to defend against organic consumers having milk labeled as from untreated cows. | | Submitted by fedup | 2007-10-28 18:17:20 | www.holsteinworld.com/news/rBST-free.htm
Concerned about recent rBST-free milk marketing moves by processors and cooperatives, Pennsylvania dairy farmers Dan Brandt, Tom Krall and Nelson Martin organized a grassroots meeting and call-to-action on Wednesday, October 25, 2006. More than 100 Pennsylvania dairy farmers from Lebanon, Berks, and northern Lancaster counties attended the meeting at the Schaefferstown fire hall, and many more called in to request information/response packets.
The idea for the meeting developed after producers began receiving letters about cooperatives going rBST-free at the processors’ request. Meeting organizers want to raise awareness of what is at stake and provide an opportunity to examine the short and long-term consequences. Packets were distributed including materials for sending letters to retailers, processors, cooperative leadership and the media. The organizing dairy farmers set forth the purpose of exploring several key issues:
1) the cost/return for giving up a production tool for less than its added efficiency;
2) the impact of misleading milk labels and advertisements creating confusion for consumers and eroding consumer confidence in milk;
3) at what level does consumer demand really exist for this product or is it a marketing campaign for processor and retailer margin – beyond the farm gate?
4) the consequences of differentiating this product in the marketplace through “perception” when there is no “real” difference in the product;
5) if rBST is the tool on the chopping block today, what will it be tomorrow?
6) what is the value of technology in agriculture and how will this issue affect future research and innovation?
Meeting highlights and follow-up contact information are presented below.
Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture Dennis C Wolff came to listen, but he also shared concerns. Wolff said: “Consumers are getting confused with the extra labels. The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture is not in a position to say use rBST or not. The key word is ‘choice.’ If producers are asked to give up a production efficiency, and if that efficiency nets them $3,000 or $10,000 a year for their dairy farm… That’s a lot of money. That’s money for insurance premiums or groceries. I would hate to see a safe and approved management tool taken away. What we oppose is the negative advertising or the selling of fear. All milk is healthy milk. Our milk is a safe product.”
Dr. Terry Etherton, Ph.D. department head, Penn State University department of Dairy and Animal Science, presented the realities of science and his assessment of the ‘rBST-free’ labeling issue. Etherton said: “There is a significant element of deception in differentiating whether milk is produced using rBST or not. Processors and cooperatives need to stand in the light of public understanding with some accountability. Each one of us has thousands of hormones floating around in our bloodstream for our very survival. Recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) is not orally active. It is digested as a protein like any other protein. It is not absorbed into the bloodstream intact -- and even if it were -- the human somatotropin (growth) receptor cells would not accept a non-primate somatotropin. There is no way on this green earth for rBST to have a biological effect on a human.”
Etherton also said: “The rBST-free labeling (and the push to get producers to sign papers) is nothing but smoke and mirrors. It is an attempt to manipulate the margin. It may be that farms will be offered a transient premium for signing these agreements. These premiums will eventually fade away, and the producer will be back in the crack. Food safety is top-of-mind for consumers, but less than 0.5% of consumers identify biotechnology as the concern. Yet Dean Foods, H.P. Hood and others are saying this is what consumers want. Somebody is getting manipulated and you are sitting with the crowd that is getting manipulated.”
The issue is not limited to rBST, said meeting speakers and organizers. Market Probe in Milwaukee, Wisconsin recently sent surveys to dairy producers asking at what premium would they give up antibiotics and timed artificial insemination. Etherton said: “This is a call to action. The issue is here, and it must be confronted. If we are passive and watch the boat sail down the river, negative consequences will play out, which will have an effect on the future viability of animal agriculture, the environment, future innovation, our products and our producers. A citizen-based effort is what is needed. We have a very robust food production system, but it is also very fragile.”
Dr. Etherton is a distinguished professor of animal nutrition and department head, Penn State University department of dairy and animal science. He has been involved in discovery research for nearly his entire professional career, including the study of somatotropins – both swine and bovine – since 1979. He authored a column in Feedstuffs October 9 in response to a September Boston Globe article about the decision by H.P. Hood and Dean Foods to switch New England milk processing plants to rBST-free milk.
Dr. Brian Reed, DVM, of Agricultural Veterinarian Associates based in Denver, Pa., talked about the long-term implications of current trends in milk labeling. He has been a dairy practitioner in the area for more than 19 years. Reed said: “There are very important things at stake. Producers have a choice to use or not use technologies that are available. That’s what I’m here to talk about: not to cause conflict but to find common ground. I’m not here to argue the merits of rBST. That was done 12 to 15 years ago during the FDA approval process and in the day-to-day decisions on individual dairy farms. I’m here to reaffirm that all milk is safe, nutritious and wholesome. We’re seeing a splintering of the dairy case today… as retailers and processors attempt to differentiate their product. A recent article noted that cooperatives are ‘between a rock and a hard place’ with retail pressure on one side and dairy farmers on the other. I want them to be there, not between a rock and a sponge. The issue of choice is a dairyman’s issue, and you also have to stand up for where you are. We have a great industry that we should all be proud of. Fighting among ourselves will only tear down the industry. The consequences erode consumer confidence in our milk product and put a stranglehold on future research and innovation. This increases your cost of production by taking away profitable technologies without a correlating increase in your milk check. What will be next?”
Dan Brandt (Lebanon County dairy farmer) said: “In August, some of us received letters from processors and cooperatives looking for farmers to sign papers not to use rBST. The biggest thing for me is preserving the right to use rBST – and other safe and approved technologies – as a management tool on my dairy farm. It has been FDA-approved for 13 years. It is the most USDA and FDA tested product. The content and composition of the milk is the same. And yet the processor can put an extra label on ‘rBST-free’ milk and charge a 40% markup to the consumer, even though there is no difference between that milk product and my milk product. This is an issue of trust for consumers, especially when they realize the dairy farmer is not the one benefiting from the retail mark-up. Whether or not dairy producers choose to use rBST, as a management tool is an individual farm management decision. But the long-term concern is an issue for all dairymen: Where does it stop? If it’s rBST today, what will we be told to give up tomorrow?”
Tom Krall (Lebanon County dairy farmer) said: “All dairy farmers need to challenge the milk bottlers and retailers that create milk labels and/or advertisements on controversial products such as rBST. Milk labeling and advertising should clear-up fears, not stir-up fears; eliminate confusion, not create confusion; promote dairy, not demote dairy. Our promotion dollars are lost if dairymen allow retailers and bottlers to cannibalize the final products that the customers purchase.”
Nelson Martin (Berks County dairy farmer) said: “We sent out 700 invitations and paid for the fire hall rental and refreshments out of our own pockets because we are concerned about the threat to the choice and independence of dairymen. The rBST-free labeling issue is dishonest to consumers and to producers.”
Martin also provided a written comment in the information/response packets, stating: “…It is bad for consumers, who will be charged a premium for a product they are led to believe is better than other milk. It is bad for the milk industry as a whole because it creates an impression that only certain kinds of milk are safe. And most of all, it is terrible for dairymen because we are losing control of our farms, being told to give up the choice of how we run our operations and being coerced into losing a completely safe and legal tool that makes us more efficient and profitable.”
Comments from the audience:
One producer attending the meeting said she wants extra labels to highlight the things dairy farmers do on a daily basis that consumers really care about. For example: animal health and husbandry, disease prevention and food safety, milk quality (SCC and components), and environmental stewardship.
On milk quality issues, one dairy producer noted that premiums paid by processors and cooperatives for low somatic cell count are deteriorating (being reduced and the thresholds tightened-up). He said that producers need to develop the state-of-mind that quality is important and be paid a better premium for achieving SCC goals that increase the shelf life of milk.
One dairy producer suggested that if everyone gave up rBST, less milk would be produced, and milk prices would then increase. Another producer replied that this increase in milk price would be temporary, noting that milk would be produced to fill the void through outside investment in large operations in other parts of the country – not family farms here in the Northeast.
Several producers who attended the meeting, indicated that having the freedom to choose how they manage their dairies, and having the access to production efficiencies that fit these individual management choices, is crucial for their survival and for the survival of family dairy farms here.
Call to Action:
1) Promote unity among dairy producers to maintain strength and freedom.
2) Urge producers to contact their cooperative leadership to voice concerns and remind them of their responsibilities to protect the interests of dairymen.
3) Urge action to stop labels and marketing campaigns from creating negative impressions about the safety and quality of milk.
4) Encourage producers not to sign documents that lock-in a specified time frame.
5) Require processors to link retail premiums back to farmers as compensation for signed agreements not to use rBST.
Midwest DairyBusiness | Northeast DairyBusiness | Western DairyBusiness |
Dairy Profit Weekly | Dairyline Radio
DairyBusiness
6437 Collamer Rd. East Syracuse, NY 13057-1031
A Multi Ag Media Company Copyright 1997-2006 © All rights reserved
E-mail your comments
|
| | Edit |
|
|
|
