Floor Covering Installer
  Home
  Subscribe
  e-newsletter
  Online
  Web Exclusives
  Dairy News
  Calendar of Events
  Dairy Field Reports
  DFR Behind the Scenes
  Ask The Experts
  DF Blog
  Videos
  Webinars
  Source Book
  Supplier Product Guide
  FISA Distributer Guide
  Associations Index
  Current Issue
  Features
  Departments
  New Products + Marketing
  Ingredient Technology
  Plant Operations
  Resources
  Dairy Foods Archives
  Dairy Field Archives
  Digital Edition Archive
  Career Center
  Classified Ads
  Industry Links
  Market Research
  DF Info
  Media Kit
  DF Events
  Membrane Short Course
  Special Collections
  Dairy 100
  Supplier Spotlights
Search in: EditorialProductsCompanies
Lack of information is truly misleading

November 20, 2007

ARTICLE TOOLS
EmailEmailPrintPrintReprintsReprintsshareShare



The Pennsylvania agriculture secretary has seen fit to overrule the federal government by forbidding what he has deemed "false and misleading" milk labeling -- namely, milk marketed as coming from cows not treated with synthetic bovine growth hormones. Of course, Monsanto's much publicized lawsuit against Maine's Oakhurst Dairy a few years back resulted in the FDA guideline that such milk carry a disclaimer that, to date, there's no scientifically verifiable diffference between milk from treated and non-treated cows.

But Dennis Wolff basically gave the Monsanto folks a wink and a nod after the St. Louis-based agriscience giant was rebuffed in its request to the feds to re-examine the labeling guidelines. But it's all for show, as the Keystone State's ruling (and me-too laws being mulled in Ohio and New Jersey) is unlikely to stand up to legal challenge. Forgetting the FDA for a minute, how can the state of Pennsylvania constitutionally bar a company from telling the truth about something its product does or does not have? Morton is not about to sue companies marketing salt-free products, nor is Imperial going to file suit against the makers of no-sugar-added foods. Not to mention the boondoggle this creates for multistate milk marketers whose territory includes Pennsylvania.

Wolff undoubtedly will have supporters in the dairy industry -- producers who wish to employ all modern farming methods at their disposal, as well as processors who argue that such labeling falsely leads consumers to believe that milk from non-treated cows is better than the rest. The same argument has been made about organic milk, so are we to ban organic labeling as well?

Ultimately, this is about choice, and consumers today have more choices at the dairy case than ever before. Organic and "rBST-free" products are among the strongest growth areas in dairy, touching consumers that otherwise might not be purchasing milk. Rulings like Pennsylvania's will stifle processors' ability to market to this audience.

Granted, the labeling should be monitored; for example, blanket declarations like "hormone free" are obviously incorrect considering milk's natural content and should not be allowed. But speaking the plain truth is something that should never be restricted.

- J.D.


  Comments (0)Post a Comment
 



 



Please enter the verification code as it appears in the box above.
 

Did you enjoy this article? Click here to subscribe to the magazine.
BNP Media