Events Calendar
In This Section
Microsoft warns of serious computer security hole
Stocks end mixed; Oil slide hits energy shares
5 die in July Fourth weekend crashes in Ohio
Police: Accused cat killer could be a sociopath
Taliban confirm capture of U.S. soldier
Two men hurt in assaults in Kenmore
Summit County gets foreign investment designation that could help Goodyear project
Relative: Police say woman with McNair bought gun
Most Read Stories
Blogs:
Pets:
Sunburn in canines and felines
The Heldenfiles:
Monday Notebook, New "90210" on DVD
Patrick McManamon:
Another NBA free agent goes to a Cavs competitor
Akron Zips:
Opponent outlook: Northern Illinois
Browns Bulletin:
Single-game ticket sales begin July 11
Tribe Matters:
Heyman: Peralta, Wood and Pavano available
Cleveland Browns:
Stallworth test showed marijuana
Kent State Sports:
Men's Basketball Scheduling update
Cleveland Cavaliers:
Free agency: Another One Bites the Dust
All Da King's Men:
The Obligatory Palin Post
Blog of Mass Destruction:
The "Limbaugh Babies"
Akron Law Café:
The Veil and the Burqa – Constitutional to Ban or Restrict?
Varsity Letters:
Solon’s Baldwin could decide soon
See Jane Style:
Picnic Wear
Car Chase:
Where do We Go from Here?
Let's Talk Real Estate:
ID My Bug
Ohio Travels with Betty:
Jennifer inquires about a bus tour to Atlantic City
Sound Check:
Rundgren fans rejoice!: Second night of AWATS at The Civic added
HRLite House:
DDI One of Best Places to Work
Akron Gamer:
Hot link: Best of Nintendo at E3
By Dennis J. Willard
Beacon Journal staff writer
POSTED: 07:25 p.m. EDT, Mar 12, 2008
COLUMBUS: Got milk controversy.
Whenever farmers or milk producers state their cartons are ''rbST-free,'' an acronym for Monsanto's artificial growth hormone recombinant bovine somatotropin, the ag-tech giant wants equal time on the label.
Monsanto and the Ohio Farm Bureau have lobbied in Ohio to ensure ''rbST-free'' milk labels also contain a disclaimer in the same size and color typeface stating the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has found no significant difference between milk from cows injected or not injected with the artificial hormone.
Gov. Ted Strickland agreed, issuing an emergency rule on Feb. 7 through the Ohio Department of Agriculture granting Monsanto's and the farm bureau's wish.
Some farmers in Ohio have felt pressured by large distributors like the Kroger Co. to move away from injecting their cows with artificial hormones or risk not being on the shelves in the grocery chain.
Critics, including the International Dairy Foods Association, the Ohio Farmers Union, organic milk producers and environmental groups, maintain the Monsanto rule is burdensome and effectively kills any effort to label milk as rbST-free.
The department has until 5 p.m. today to decide whether to move ahead with plans to make the emergency rule permanent through approval from the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR).
On Wednesday, Lewis R. Jones, the department's dairy division chief, and legal counsel David Gorman, listened to 27 witnesses testify for more than four hours, a majority of whom oppose Strickland's disclaimer rule.
The hearing would have been longer, but Jones and Gorman asked no questions and anyone who wanted to add more to their testimony had until the end of the day to put their rebuttals in writing.
After, Jones said leaders in the department, including the director, Robert Boggs, would meet, review the testimony and decide whether to rescind the order, recommend changes or submit the rule to JCARR as originally written.
For more than 14 years, since the FDA approved the use of rbST, more and more farmers and milk producers have labeled their product as hormone free, especially in recent years, as organic goods have become more popular and profitable.
Lawyers and scientists lined up Wednesday arguing over whether Monsanto's hormone has been banned in Canada and a large part of the European Union, if Strickland's rule violates Interstate Commerce rights, the FDA's credibility and the warnings on rbST's packaging.
They also debated the definition of free speech with each side having a different take on what is needed to fully inform the public.
Critics of the rule argue what is known as ''absence labeling'' has worked great for more than a decade. When a producer states something is rbST-free, they are absence labeling.
Monsanto believes absence labeling sends a message that the hormone is inherently bad, and points out that the FDA approved rbST.
Stacey Slater, Monsanto's assistant general counsel, told Lewis and Gorman that the governor's rule ensures the FDA's findings are fully disclosed.
She said producers do not have to label their milk, but if they insist they are hormone free then they must explain the ''whole truth'' to consumers.
Jerry Slominski, senior vice-president for the dairy foods association, said the rule should be rescinded because consumers want more choices in the dairy case, not fewer.
Slominski said the administration was engaging in a debate that will ultimately lead to a loss of consumer confidence and trust in dairy products.
Brendon Cull, representing Kroger, said his company pays a premium for milk that is rbST-free because it became clear from feedback that customers are demanding it.
''We believe strongly that our milk, which is no longer from cows treated with rbST, should be labeled as such,'' Cull said.
Rob Bouick, an Ohio dairy farmer, applauded Strickland and the department for having the courage to stand up to Kroger, the dairy foods association and other ''anti-technology activists'' that he said were using demagoguery to exploit the labeling issue.
Bouick said the milk marketers forced him to stop using rbST or face not having his milk on grocery shelves, and his production fell 20 percent.
''IDFA claims they speak for farmers. They don't speak for me,'' Bouick said.
James Armstrong, a consumer from Columbus, said he grew up on a family farm in Nebraska and is careful to read labels to avoid artificial ingredients.
''I just want the plain simple truth,'' Armstrong said.
COLUMBUS: Got milk controversy.
Whenever farmers or milk producers state their cartons are ''rbST-free,'' an acronym for Monsanto's artificial growth hormone recombinant bovine somatotropin, the ag-tech giant wants equal time on the label.
Monsanto and the Ohio Farm Bureau have lobbied in Ohio to ensure ''rbST-free'' milk labels also contain a disclaimer in the same size and color typeface stating the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has found no significant difference between milk from cows injected or not injected with the artificial hormone.
Gov. Ted Strickland agreed, issuing an emergency rule on Feb. 7 through the Ohio Department of Agriculture granting Monsanto's and the farm bureau's wish.
Some farmers in Ohio have felt pressured by large distributors like the Kroger Co. to move away from injecting their cows with artificial hormones or risk not being on the shelves in the grocery chain.
Critics, including the International Dairy Foods Association, the Ohio Farmers Union, organic milk producers and environmental groups, maintain the Monsanto rule is burdensome and effectively kills any effort to label milk as rbST-free.
The department has until 5 p.m. today to decide whether to move ahead with plans to make the emergency rule permanent through approval from the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR).
On Wednesday, Lewis R. Jones, the department's dairy division chief, and legal counsel David Gorman, listened to 27 witnesses testify for more than four hours, a majority of whom oppose Strickland's disclaimer rule.
The hearing would have been longer, but Jones and Gorman asked no questions and anyone who wanted to add more to their testimony had until the end of the day to put their rebuttals in writing.
After, Jones said leaders in the department, including the director, Robert Boggs, would meet, review the testimony and decide whether to rescind the order, recommend changes or submit the rule to JCARR as originally written.
For more than 14 years, since the FDA approved the use of rbST, more and more farmers and milk producers have labeled their product as hormone free, especially in recent years, as organic goods have become more popular and profitable.
Lawyers and scientists lined up Wednesday arguing over whether Monsanto's hormone has been banned in Canada and a large part of the European Union, if Strickland's rule violates Interstate Commerce rights, the FDA's credibility and the warnings on rbST's packaging.
They also debated the definition of free speech with each side having a different take on what is needed to fully inform the public.
Critics of the rule argue what is known as ''absence labeling'' has worked great for more than a decade. When a producer states something is rbST-free, they are absence labeling.
Monsanto believes absence labeling sends a message that the hormone is inherently bad, and points out that the FDA approved rbST.
Stacey Slater, Monsanto's assistant general counsel, told Lewis and Gorman that the governor's rule ensures the FDA's findings are fully disclosed.
She said producers do not have to label their milk, but if they insist they are hormone free then they must explain the ''whole truth'' to consumers.
Jerry Slominski, senior vice-president for the dairy foods association, said the rule should be rescinded because consumers want more choices in the dairy case, not fewer.
Slominski said the administration was engaging in a debate that will ultimately lead to a loss of consumer confidence and trust in dairy products.
Brendon Cull, representing Kroger, said his company pays a premium for milk that is rbST-free because it became clear from feedback that customers are demanding it.
''We believe strongly that our milk, which is no longer from cows treated with rbST, should be labeled as such,'' Cull said.
Rob Bouick, an Ohio dairy farmer, applauded Strickland and the department for having the courage to stand up to Kroger, the dairy foods association and other ''anti-technology activists'' that he said were using demagoguery to exploit the labeling issue.
Bouick said the milk marketers forced him to stop using rbST or face not having his milk on grocery shelves, and his production fell 20 percent.
''IDFA claims they speak for farmers. They don't speak for me,'' Bouick said.
James Armstrong, a consumer from Columbus, said he grew up on a family farm in Nebraska and is careful to read labels to avoid artificial ingredients.
''I just want the plain simple truth,'' Armstrong said.
Comments
Click here to post your comments
