Battle over rbGH labeling flares in Kansas

December 3, 2:06 AMFood ExaminerEric Burkett

Previous Next

5 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Food Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

There's nothing like a snack of cookies and a tall, icy
cold glass of rbGH-fortified milk.

There’s something interesting going on in Kansas, right now. Actually, if you follow politics, there’s always something interesting going on in Kansas and this matter involves both politics and food. Once again, the issue of whether organic milk producers can legally label their milk as being free from synthetic growth hormones is on the table, and proponents of both sides of the matter are not going to let the issue go without a little bloodletting.

Yesterday representatives from both sides of the issue met in Topeka to testify on Kansas Administrative Regulation 4-7-723. According to the organization Food and Water Watch, in a letter to Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sibelius, the proposed regulation “would ban labels such as ‘rbGH-free,’ ‘rbST free, ’or‘ no artificial growth hormones,’ on dairy products and would require a disclaimer in certain font size when a label states ‘from cows not treated with rbGH.’”

For clarity’s sake, rbGH is shorthand for recombinant bovine growth hormone, a synthetic form of the naturally occurring bovine growth hormone which, as you would expect, promotes growth. More specifically, rbGH actually prevents mammary cell death. Farmers who use rbGH (which is sold under the commercial name Posilac) begin injecting cattle every two weeks with the synthetic hormone when the cows reach their peak production cycle. By doing so, farmers are able to keep milk production at a high level over a longer period of time, increasing milk production by as much as 10 to 20 percent. That may not sound like much, but over a long period of time, injected into a great many cows, it accounts for $250 to $300 million a year, according to writer and nutrition professor Marion Nestle.

On one side of the argument in Topeka are various consumer groups, retailers, and environmental and agricultural organizations such as Consumers Union, Food and Water Watch, Whole Foods Markets, Organic Trade Association, the Sierra Club, and Kansas Rural Center. On the other side, American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology (AFACT), Monsanto Corporation, and Elanco, the agricultural division of pharmaceutical giant Eli Lily and Co. Although, according to the Associated Press,  AFACT is sponsored in part by Monsanto, you won’t find that information on AFACT’s web site. You won’t find Monsanto - or Elanco - mentioned at all, actually.

Tomorrow, we’ll look at why rbGH is so controversial.