Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Monsanto's Lobbying Defeated, Truth in Labeling Wins
thedailygreen.com — Pennsylvania will allow its farmers to continue labeling hormone-free milk, after rejecting the synthetic hormone maker's state-by-state effort to keep that information from consumers.
shapattack- 902 diggs
- digg it
- shapattack, on 01/18/2008, -0/+63These guys are trying to take the anti-labeling push into five or six other states, too. If people don't want to drink the hormones, they shouldn't have to.
- SkippyDoorknob, on 01/18/2008, -1/+6If the hormones still exist in the milk, shouldn't there have to be an ingredient list showing them?
- noahhoward, on 01/19/2008, -1/+12Yes but that's not what's going on. The company that makes the milk hormones doesn't want people to know there is a hormone-free competitor.
- SkippyDoorknob, on 01/19/2008, -1/+1Well yeah, I understood that part, but it just made me wonder about ingredient labels also.
- bobartig, on 01/19/2008, -7/+1There isn't a hormone-free competitor, unless you're talking about soy milk. All cow milk contains BST, or Bovine Somatotropin hormone. it is a natural component of milk. Monsanto's argument is that the labeling is damaging to their products because it implies that there is a quality difference between milks produced with rBST and those produced without, namely, that milk produced from cows treated with rBST is of inferior quality, which lab testing cannot prove.
- BlueSkyfish, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbgh/0724_monsanto ...
- noahhoward, on 01/19/2008, -1/+12Yes but that's not what's going on. The company that makes the milk hormones doesn't want people to know there is a hormone-free competitor.
- bobartig, on 01/19/2008, -1/+4The issue here is that the hormones are present in ALL milk. Whether you use rBST or not, there will be BST hormone present in your Milk, as it is a natural component of cow milk. rBST milk doesn't contain any more of it, or a different kind. It is indistinguishable from milk produced without rBST.
I am still for labelling rights, because I think consumers should be allowed to decide HOW their food is produced. In that sense, its more akin to sweatshop labelling. The t-shirt is probably the same whether its made by a well-treated employee, or a sweatshop worker, but if a mfr would like to say "we do not use sweatshops", I think that is their right.- bbear, on 01/19/2008, -0/+4If BST is a natural component of milk then why does rBST exist?
- coreylol, on 01/19/2008, -4/+1it's true, there has been no evidence that rBST causes any negative effects. this allows consumers to be duped into buying more expensive organic when there is no evidence supporting their claims that rBST is harmful.
why are people so passionate about things they know nothing about??? oh yeah, because theyre stupid and lazy and unwilling to do the research
- LetTheEgoSoar, on 01/19/2008, -0/+9The denaturing of the American food supply is one of the biggest problems America faces, IMO. We haven't even seen the tip of the iceberg of health problems that face this country as a result of the sinister practices of the food, pharmaceutical and insurance companies
- LeeSoong, on 01/19/2008, -0/+3It certainly is a Free Speech right for a farmer to tell you what IS NOT in his food.
This is important for people who want natural food, organic food, and those who may be sensitive to artificial additives...
- SkippyDoorknob, on 01/18/2008, -1/+6If the hormones still exist in the milk, shouldn't there have to be an ingredient list showing them?
- skewl, on 01/18/2008, -6/+36I think this is an outrage and a violation of our civil liberties. The company should be able to advertise how they want as long as what is on the label is true.
- nick111, on 01/19/2008, -1/+10You really need to ask yourself how you got to the point where lieing by ommision so Monsanto can make more money equates to your civil liberties.
Corporations don't have civil liberties. They're not people.- inhaler, on 01/19/2008, -1/+7They do have personhood....
- LeeSoong, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1Unlike Camp X-ray 'non-persons' ...
- altgeeky1, on 01/19/2008, -1/+5>Corporations don't have civil liberties. They're not people.
I do not think you know what 'corporation' means.
Legally, corporations ARE people. Do some research or at least look the word up.
As to the grandparent poster, I couldn't tell which side he was arguing on as he was so vague. Was he he really arguing that Monsanto should be able to advertise as they want?? Monsanto isn't the one advertising (packaging actually) - dairy farmers are. It sounded to ME like he was saying that the dairy farmers THEMSELVES should be able to label the milk doesn't contain growth hormones. So you might have misread his statement (easy enough...)
- inhaler, on 01/19/2008, -1/+7They do have personhood....
- tba2287, on 01/19/2008, -1/+3When it comes to product safety, consumers have a right to know what they're putting in their bodies. While the FDA can do stupid ***** (when under control of Republican presidents) I would rather have laws requiring safe food then screaming "caveat emptor!" while getting botchulism.
- nick111, on 01/19/2008, -1/+10You really need to ask yourself how you got to the point where lieing by ommision so Monsanto can make more money equates to your civil liberties.
- gnomey, on 01/18/2008, -1/+73Consumers have a right to know what went into their food.
- socialpyramid, on 01/18/2008, -1/+18Yeah, I mean seriously. Is that so much to ask?
- maanwi, on 01/19/2008, -0/+8Our government typically doesn't think we have the right to this information - we have labeling laws that are worse than most other civilized countries. That "cinnamon" in your spice cabinet probably isn't; it's most likely Cassia, and it could poison you if you partake too much and too often. Almost every time you see the word "spice" in an ingredient list, along with a host of other pseudonyms for it, the actual ingredient is MSG. The foods that you're eating on a regular basis are likely to be GMOs that Monsanto came up with and that the FDA doesn't require to be disclosed - Americans are part of an unwitting experiment.
- stoanhart, on 01/19/2008, -2/+2Then again, if you force labeling you are ***** with the free market. If I produce a product, I should be the one and only person who decides what goes on the label. It's my product, after all.
If people suddenly start getting paranoid about hormones and I don't indicate one way or the other whether my product contains them, I lose customers. If I continue to ignore them, my business goes down the drain. The market at work.- tba2287, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2Yeah, but that'll only happen after a few people get sick and die.
- aidave, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2You mean like Monsanto trying to force no labeling? They are the ones ***** with the "free market". In any case, there is no freedom if all consumers are presented with are lies.
- LeeSoong, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1and where it was produced - where it came from ...
- socialpyramid, on 01/18/2008, -1/+18Yeah, I mean seriously. Is that so much to ask?
- mightydavefish, on 01/18/2008, -6/+62***** you, Monsanto.
This company is disgusting, and I sincerely hope someday their board is brought up on charges.
Or just lined up against a wall and shot.
These scumbags who play games with our health deserve the worst punishment we can devise.
Let's start with waterboarding......- Berkana, on 01/18/2008, -1/+28Let's milkboard them instead.
- mushoo, on 01/18/2008, -0/+6Nah, save the milk and use hormones instead. You don't even have to (...)board them just inject them with a couple hundred ccs of rbST, bST, BGH or rBGH until they scream uncle.
- LeeSoong, on 01/19/2008, -0/+3remember - the dept of justice said it's not torture unless their organs fail ?
- mushoo, on 01/18/2008, -0/+6Nah, save the milk and use hormones instead. You don't even have to (...)board them just inject them with a couple hundred ccs of rbST, bST, BGH or rBGH until they scream uncle.
- IADTatami, on 01/18/2008, -1/+13Rev up the Pasteurizer!
- theojanke, on 01/18/2008, -1/+11I prefer to call them MonSatan
- Berkana, on 01/18/2008, -1/+28Let's milkboard them instead.
- EllieElliott, on 01/18/2008, -1/+15Thanks for the happy news!
- granolajoe, on 01/18/2008, -0/+43I'm pretty scared at the thought of a food engineering giant having the audacity and drive to keep such important information from consumers. What the *****?
- EllieElliott, on 01/18/2008, -0/+22it ain't the first time...
won't be the last. - smurfsahoy, on 01/19/2008, -4/+3The point is that no studies show that it IS important. Which makes it not actually that bad that they don't tell you about it in their milk. But trying to make other companies not tell you either is much worse.
- yarukizero, on 01/19/2008, -0/+3What I had heard was that there most certainly were studies that said it was different, and the FDA largely ignored these in favor of questionable research by Monsanto and other proponents of the hormones.
- smurfsahoy, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2Heard from...?
- LeeSoong, on 01/19/2008, -2/+1"moo"
- smurfsahoy, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2Heard from...?
- yarukizero, on 01/19/2008, -0/+3What I had heard was that there most certainly were studies that said it was different, and the FDA largely ignored these in favor of questionable research by Monsanto and other proponents of the hormones.
- tgc1, on 01/19/2008, -0/+3Funny how the FDA, a government body charged with keeping the american public safe, is complicit with these crimes. I smell some corruption in there. "Here's a few million dollars, make sure this goes through *wink, wink*"
- EllieElliott, on 01/18/2008, -0/+22it ain't the first time...
- Goodanswer, on 01/18/2008, -0/+181 for the little guy, 24,342,753 for Monsanto...well hey, its a start!
We are lucky now that we are on top of the hill (we woke up)so Monsanto can roll all the way back into oblivion.
you know the old saying " ***** rolls down hill.." - andyboyd, on 01/18/2008, -2/+15And there was me thinking the USA was a democracy until I remembered multi-natioanl companies couldn't give 2 craps for freedom over profit.
- crewof502, on 01/18/2008, -1/+22I'd like to see a movement to change the ingredients in our foods as well, such as those containing High Fructose Corn Syrup, which is known to be a huge health problem and in 90% of our food.
- koreth, on 01/18/2008, -1/+11Good luck with that. The big corn-growing regions of the country are represented in the national legislature way out of proportion to their populations, and you can bet they'll fight tooth and nail to avoid any move away from corn syrup, whatever its health consequences.
- xonahuia, on 01/19/2008, -1/+9I say we fight no matter what instead of rolling over and playing dead
- tgc1, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2Better ask why the government subsidizes corn production so much then. I doubt humans need THAT much corn in their diet.
- LeeSoong, on 01/19/2008, -0/+3Let us not forget the problem with GMO soybeans:
http://www.mercola.com/article/soy/avoid_soy.htm
and what about eating the animals that eat hundreds of pounds of soybeans ?
Are they really safe to eat?
- koreth, on 01/18/2008, -1/+11Good luck with that. The big corn-growing regions of the country are represented in the national legislature way out of proportion to their populations, and you can bet they'll fight tooth and nail to avoid any move away from corn syrup, whatever its health consequences.
- mateo60, on 01/18/2008, -0/+7No way! I thought this was 100% defeated. I was mad about it too. This made my day a little nicer. :)
- Alix7, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2PA Department of Agriculture Secretary
http://www.agriculture.state.pa.us/agriculture/cwp ...
"Dennis Wolff" - maiku00, on 01/18/2008, -0/+12its sad how we are all shocked that the logical, obvious, and 'correct 'outcome of events took place
- meace1234, on 01/18/2008, -1/+7But.....they wont have to label clone animal meat and milk?
http://mrobvious.wordpress.com/category/cloning/- DrOBoogie, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2There's no difference in policies. Just as here there's nothing preventing anyone from labeling their foods however they want as long as its true, it's the same situation in cloned foods.
- Hyperion1144, on 01/19/2008, -0/+3No. But certain companies WILL label their stuff as GMO/clone/franken-science free. Unlabeled = suspicious. If they don't want to talk about it (unlabeled) odds are they are hoping you won't think about it (out of sight, out of mind). If the market for non-frankenscience foods is there, some companies will be willing to provide to it, and they will advertise it. Organic foods are by far the fastest growing segment of the food and agriculture industry right now, for a reason.
Vote with your dollars. No label as being GMO/clone/franken-science free means we don't buy it! The cloning will happen if its profitable. Make it unprofitable!
- Apolloblue20, on 01/19/2008, -0/+9This is good news. People have the right to know what is in their milk (all food for that matter) and how it was made.
- jaredog, on 01/19/2008, -4/+2Damn you Monsanto! Oh wait. My dad works for them and they gave me a student loan. Should I feel guilty?
- adooga, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1Why, do you?
- smurfsahoy, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2That's not how morals work. First, you have an emotional, irrational gut feeling, and THEN you rationalize it. Try to keep up.
- altgeeky1, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2No. The mark on your forehead will show clearly, soon enough.
Besides, with all the federal education money being diverted to tax cuts for the rich, if you DIDN'T take the loan you'd be forced into joining the military to pay for school (or living at home till you are 30+ paying it back) - meace1234, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1He drank the koolaid....sure hope it didnt have any hormones and clone crap in it...
- SiNN4R, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1You're an inhuman monster.
- bxblox, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1God will punish you for your sins... and hopefully mine.
- 22pages, on 01/19/2008, -0/+10Let's collectively challenge Monsanto to a test:
If you think Prosiliac is so safe and wonderful as you claim in your website and your pr campaigns, let's see you feed your kids milk with prosiliac residue in it in large quantities for a few weeks straight. You can chug a few gallons yourself.
Call it the Milkboarding challenge (name taken from joke above).
I'm sure anyone at all affiliated with those products steers well clear of them and chooses organic options for their families. If they don't well, that's just sick. - techresearcher, on 01/19/2008, -1/+4Check this cool video: The Future of Food. Some mention of how Monsanto controls the nation too...
http://www.mercola.com/future-of-food - HappyScrappy, on 01/19/2008, -8/+1The very first sentence in the article is misleading.
'
Pennsylvania resisted a lobbying push by Monsanto that sought to outlaw the labeling of milk that is free of artificial hormones.'
All milk is free of these hormones because the hormones are not expressed in the milk. The labeling would be about whether the milk was produced with cows that were treated with these hormones.- airwalkery2k, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2What do you think milk is? It's a fluid filled with nutrients from a female cow's teets. A cow is not some mechanical tool. Its milk made of whatever she ate and whatever was in her bloodstream.
- AlanLivingston, on 01/19/2008, -4/+1How do you keep your ass-cheeks from moving, like that, when you talk out your ass?
And they're teats. It's pronounced "*****", hence the vernacular for human female breasts. There's no such thing as "teets" on a farm.- ChaosMotor, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2You can flavor milk by feeding the cows differently. And having raised some cows, everyone called them teats, like it's spelled.
- AlanLivingston, on 01/19/2008, -4/+1How do you keep your ass-cheeks from moving, like that, when you talk out your ass?
- bobartig, on 01/19/2008, -1/+1bovine hormones are naturally occurring in all cow milk.
- airwalkery2k, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2What do you think milk is? It's a fluid filled with nutrients from a female cow's teets. A cow is not some mechanical tool. Its milk made of whatever she ate and whatever was in her bloodstream.
- ZenMojo, on 01/19/2008, -0/+6How dare the FDA let farmers tell people what is and isn't in their food. That creates an unreasonably hostile marketplace for our Big Brother, Big Agro!
/sarcasm - bobartig, on 01/19/2008, -1/+7They are not putting hormones in your milk. Bovine hormones are present in all milk. If you treat cows with rBST (recombinant bovine somatotropin), cows will produce more milk, but it will be indistinguishable from milk from cows that were not given the hormone. So, nothing is ending up in the milk that wouldn't already be there.
Still, Monsanto would like to force milk producers NOT to be able to say whether milk was produced using rBST or not, because they feel that labels that specifically say that rBST was not used 'implies' that milk that comes from rBST users is of inferior quality.
If a dairy chooses to have that level of transparency, they should have the right to say whether the dairy used rBST, whether they treated their cows well, what the cows ate, how well the farm handlers were treated, and what color scarves they knitted the heffers to keep their ears warm. If they want to print these sorts of statements (and back them up), I say more power to them.- dwhitbeck, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2Cows treated with hormones produce more milk and are more prone to udder injures and mastitus.
- feckineejit, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2shouldn't this be in politics? I'm so happy to see that for once the big corporations lobbying efforts have failed and the peoples best interest has prevailed.
- Ferre1, on 01/19/2008, -0/+9I'm a chemist and have worked for Monsanto. Evil company.
- tgc1, on 01/19/2008, -0/+0Don't they make you sign an NDA or something?
- Ellipsys, on 01/19/2008, -0/+8Thank ***** god. There is nothing more disgusting than what corporate and factory farming is doing to the health of this nation. Monsanto is one of the worst. Producers of any agricultural product should be encouraged to put as much information as possible on the label so consumers can make an informed choice. Corporate farming giants are afraid of an informed consumer. Once they see how many hormones, antibiotics, artificial chemicals and preservatives, not to mention animals in horrible condition, are involved in the food production, these same consumers search out certified organic alternatives and never look back.
- iHippie, on 01/19/2008, -0/+5***** you Monsanto! Goddamn corn-stealers.
Try hemp milk instead!- Ellipsys, on 01/19/2008, -0/+3Dug for delicious hemp milk. Doesn't give you boobs or any of those estrogen effects of soy, either. Dig in, guys!
- spineaches, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1hemp milk is dank! (and good for you!)
- bxblox, on 01/19/2008, -1/+1mmmmm hormones
- AsusMobo, on 01/19/2008, -0/+6Man, there was a guy in the Wash Post recently that was talking about how some libertarians wanted to lift federal restrictions on unpasteurized milk. I was thinking to myself, who the hell would drink unpasteurized...doesn't sound safe. So I started poking around. Apparently, man was drinking unpasteurized cow milk for thousands of years with little or no problems. When these nasty commercial dairy farms started to crop up all over the place, to increase profits they kept the cows in deplorable conditions. Basically, fed the cows the diseased by products of other dead cows and pretty much made them stand in a muck filled stall all day pumped full of hormones. The large dairy's had to pasteurize to make the product safe to drink. Then they lobbied congress to put tons of restrictions out any dairy that wasn't pasteurizing, basically killing the small dairies with healthy cows.
Why does milk say vitamin D Fortified all the time? Well, pasteurization removes pretty much any nutrition in the milk. All that is left is sugar and denatured proteins, so vitamins are added later.- HappyScrappy, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2What are you talking about?
Pasteur DIED in 1892, LONG well before factory farms started and before cows were fed parts of animals (they have never been fed parts of dead cows in the US).
Vitamin D is not natural in milk, even if you don't pasteurize it, it doesn't have vitamin D. Vitamin D was added to milk for the same reason iodine is added to salt, because it is thought it will improve public health.
It's too bad something as simple as accurate labeling has to be distorted by people like you.- transcendz, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1Get your facts right : "Milk from all lactating animals, including humans, contains vitamin D3 that has been produced photochemically from 7-dehydrocholesterol present in the skin. In cow's milk it has been determined that the concentration of vitamin D3 in milk provided by the cow is roughly 35-70 International Units per quart as determined via biological assay (12) and approximately 50-80 International Units as determined by modern chemical mass spectrometric procedures (13)". There IS Vitamin D in Milk, but in low levels.
- antechinus, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1Spend 10 minutes in the sun each day and your own body will manufacture enough vitamin D.
- transcendz, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1Get your facts right : "Milk from all lactating animals, including humans, contains vitamin D3 that has been produced photochemically from 7-dehydrocholesterol present in the skin. In cow's milk it has been determined that the concentration of vitamin D3 in milk provided by the cow is roughly 35-70 International Units per quart as determined via biological assay (12) and approximately 50-80 International Units as determined by modern chemical mass spectrometric procedures (13)". There IS Vitamin D in Milk, but in low levels.
- HappyScrappy, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2What are you talking about?
- jjason1985, on 01/19/2008, -0/+5Remember agent orange? self terminating seeds? same guys.
Monsanto is the definition of an evil corporation, with profit above all else including human life. - Bunkyo, on 01/19/2008, -0/+3Monsanto is owned by Pharmacia.
Pharmacia is owned by Pfizer.
Pfizer is owned by Johnson & Johnson
Johnson & Johnson is owned by little old ladies that care about your health. (Mm-m)
The sit back is minor. It’s like having a pawn tip over. You just sit it back up. - Reeses2150, on 01/19/2008, -0/+3This is something that just makes me lose faith in people(more than everything else already has). I don't care if my milk came from a hormone free cow or not. Hell, I don't care if my milk came from a cow that's got udders bigger than it's body. Doesn't matter to me. But some people feel STRONGLY about wanting more natural milk, and they have the right to know whether their milk came from hormone free cows or not.
Tycoon or not, if you have the balls to try and ***** on the guys that cater to this small crowd (and believe me, working at Shoprite for two years, I saw that for every one customer that was in the health foods aisle, there were at least a few dozen in the other aisles), they should be banned from business. Period.
One of the key morales in business for me, and what I think makes for good PR and good business, is to focus on making your business better than everyone else, that way everyone comes to you. Not you trying to steal away customers or put others out of business. - khfn, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2Monsanto can suck a fat one.
- circleback2, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2***** off Monsanto you lying greedy bastards!
- aidave, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2Monsanto = Evil
- davidstrauss, on 01/19/2008, -1/+0There's really no evidence that the rBGH hormones make it to the final milk product, so people talking about a "right to know what's in your food" need to do some research. Also, remember that these organic companies are for-profit ventures, just like Monsanto, and they have a keen interest in scaring people away from milk produced with rBGH. That said, I think producers should be allowed to label that their milk was produced without rBGH, but they should not be able to imply that it affects the content of the product without research to back it up. There are reasons to avoid milk produced using rBGH, even if it's simply out of concern for animal quality of life.
- AvangionQ, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1If there's no discernible difference, then why are these products banned in Canada and Europe?
- zugzub, on 01/20/2008, -0/+0For all of you clowns saying that rBGH does nothing to the milk, go read this article
(thanks to Bluefish)
http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbgh/0724_monsanto ...
I for one know exactly where my milk comes from and exactly what the cows where fed.
Get your head out of your ass people. Monsatan could care less if they kill you - lostlyrics, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1Which biotech firm other than Monsanto was a major
supplier of Agent Orange, as well as manufacturing napalm?- lostlyrics, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1DOW
- lostlyrics, on 06/03/2008, -0/+1thanks to (actually not just) monsanto us-
american babyfood resembles child abuse.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by