Note from Alex

We will be launching the new Milk is Milk website shortly. This site will contain it's own blog section. Please update your RSS feeds and have a look at our new site. Update your RSS feeds: Blog Press Release Best, Alex

Media Milk Misinformation Machines

Alex Avery cgfi.org
The following are examples from specific news organization where consumers were grossly misinformed that the artificial hormone rbST alters milk in some way. (Misinformation is highlighted in bold text.) We attempted to contact each reporter and/or news organization to correct their misreporting, all to no avail.

Thus, we are including specific contact information above each misleading or erroneous story example so that you, the well educated consumer and dairy producer, can attempt to contact them and set the record straight. We hope you have better luck than we had. [NOTE: Be sure to include the URL (web address) of the misleading story so editors will know which story is being questioned.]


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16690455/
REUTERS
Demand rising for milk made without additive
Industry sees tide turning in long battle over artificial growth hormone
January 18, 2006
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Five years ago, Missouri dairy farmer Leroy Shatto was struggling to stay in business. Today, his herd has more than doubled amid a surge in demand for his product. The difference: a marketing campaign touting Shatto milk as free of artificial hormones. . . . The debate has taken a marked turn over the past several months as a growing number of dairy producers and food industry players have begun demanding rbST-free milk, citing heightened consumer demand and new niche marketing opportunities.

"We're not making any moral judgments. It is about giving consumers what they want, and there are some consumers who simply do not want artificial growth hormones in their milk," said Marguerite Copel, spokeswoman for Dean Foods Co., the nation's largest milk processor and distributor.

REUTERS' CONTACT SITE: http://aboutreuters.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/aboutreuters.cfg/php/enduser/site_fdbck.php


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16692226/
What's Missing at Starbucks?
Starbucks switches to milk without artificial growth hormone; consumers won't miss it.
By Alyce Lomax
Updated: 9:39 a.m. ET Jan 18, 2007
Starbucks is on a roll when it comes to altering some of its ingredients. The coffee giant recently began removing trans fats from its wares. Now, it says it's bowing to consumer demand by switching to milk that doesn't contain artificial growth hormones. It seems that sometimes, an item's absence can be a competitive advantage.

MSNBC CONTACT: letters@msnbc.com


http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2007-01-17-starbucks-hormone_x.htm
Some Starbucks dropping milk products made with growth hormone
Posted 1/17/2007 11:13 AM ET
SEATTLE (AP) – Starbucks Coffee (SBUX) is ending its use of milk products that contain an artificial growth hormone, starting in much of the West and New England.

USA TODAY CONTACT: http://feedbackforms.usatoday.com/marketing/feedback/feedback-online.aspx?type=18

ASSOCIATED PRESS CONTACT: info@ap.org


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/299984_starbucksmilk17.html
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Starbucks switches to milk without growth hormones
By CRAIG HARRIS
With no fanfare, Starbucks Coffee Co. this month began using milk products without a controversial artificial growth hormone in its home state.

P-I reporter Craig Harris can be reached at 206-448-8138 or craigharris@seattlepi.com
(To be fair, Craig is a business reporter and he did call the local dairy farmers association – who failed to correctly inform Mr. Harris about the non-difference between milk from cows supplemented with rbST and those not receiving the supplement)


Starbucks to stop using milk with artificial growth hormones in it
CNN Headline News, January 16, 2007
Reporter Jennifer Westhoven: "Starbucks is going to stop using milk with artificial growth hormones in it. Now, many dairies give this controversial "bovine growth hormone" to their cows - it's called rbGH - and it helps the cows produce more milk. Starbucks, though, will be phasing it out of most of its stores in the United States. If you're thinking, well, you know, why don't they change it in other countries? It's because they don't allow it in most other countries - it was never there in the first place." (shocked laughter from news anchor/host)

CONTACT: Jennifer.Westhoven@turner.com

Milk is Milk Billboard recently Vandalized

Milk is Milk blog by Alex Avery In August of 2006, we unveiled our billboards along California's Highway 99, in an effort to educate consumers about a simple fact: Milk is Milk. Our efforts have received a lot of response, most of which has been positive. However, it looks like we touched a raw nerve with at least one reader of our blog. A friend of the Milk is Milk blog sent in this photo, showing our billboard in Pixley, CA defaced with a message from an uninformed and reckless scofflaw. We have reported the defacement to the billboard company, as well as to the local police. Clearly the culprit behind this vandalism does not value his or her life, engaging in two very dangerous activities: defacing private property, and advocating for raw milk. The benefits of milk pasteurization have been proved time and time again. Consuming unpasteurized dairy products poses a serious health risk, especially for children and those with weak immune systems. More information on the dangers of raw milk can be found on our Milk is Milk Web site.

Starbucks Takes a Wrong Turn on the Socially Responsible Road

Starbucks has taken a wrong turn on the road to social responsibility. I have always admired how Starbucks stood fast in their refusal to kowtow to activists and advocacy groups who make a career out of demanding one thing or another in their strategy to rid the world of modern conveniences. Recently, the Ralph Nader spin off group Food and Water Watch took on the years-long Organic Consumers Association campaign against Starbucks, asking among other things that they offer organic milk at no higher cost; that they sell only products that do not contain any gmos, and that they discontinue the purchasing of milk produced with the help of rBST. Starbucks has never capitulated and always maintained that they would listen to their customers. Until now. Food and Water Watch has carried on far more feverishly than OCA ever did, and apparently that heat got to Starbucks, who recently responded to a FWW "action" that they were working to increase their supply of "rBST-free" milk. Starbucks has made the mistake of hearing advocacy noise as consumer requests. (Six staffers and their children dressed as cows should not count as consumer demand). And that is bad news for America's dairy farmers, not to mention the environment and consumers who will now have to pay more for a product that is NO DIFFERENT! Dairy processors are so afraid of the growth in the organic sector that they have completely made up a sector of their own, referred to in the media as organic lite. The only distinction is that this milk is labeled as having been produced from cows not treated with rBST. This is designed so all those mothers believe they are buying hormone free milk, or milk that does not contain antibiotics or any of the other litany of made up complaints against a product used safely and effectively by thousands of dairy farmers over the last decade. Even the Today Show recently compared organic and conventional milk and could find absolutely no difference between them. Monsanto, the company that makes rBST, (and yes, they are one of the many occasional funders of the Hudson Institute, parent of CGFI--move on already) should consider their own action against FWW for slander, for maligning a product that science--not emotion--has proved to be safe. Although of course they would be painted as the big bad corporation picking on the poor little advocacy group, despite their Goliath like budget, and Public Citizen's patron saint Ralph Nader. Where are the groups like Cornucopia defending small dairy farmers and their right to use approved products on their farms? Where are the environmentalists, pointing out how much these decisions increase the amount of land, water, and other natural resources needed to produce our food? Where are the consumers, righteously indignant that they have been duped into paying more for bogus claims or implied benefits that do not exist? If any of you want to talk, you know how to reach me.

WalMart dismisses Cornucopia claims of misleading labels; questions their motivation!

Well, bust my buttons! The folks at WalMart are apparently readers of this blog. How else to explain this quote in the Washington Post? As faithful readers know, this is the only place that has publicly called out the Cornucopia Institute in the past, despite our efforts at letting the world know the truth. But what a great feeling to finally see a major media outlet ask the questions that we have been asking for years now - how much money has Organic Valley given to Cornucopia and its principals? The timing, too, could not be better. We have been struggling with our own feelings towards the boys of Cornucopia over the past few weeks because we actually agree with them on something. Cornucopia has been vocal in its criticism of the recent moves by dairy processors to market their products as "organic lite." They called their efforts misleading and duplicitous. We wanted to embrace them, welcome them to the fold, thank them for their bold and courageous statements. But then we realized that although it would be helpful to have an ally in the battle against misleading labeling, it would mean embracing the notion that organic deserves special status, and I can't do it. I believe strongly that organic is a fraud or to shamelessly plug my book, a myth. It is not sustainable; it is not safer; it is not healthier; it is not free of antibiotics and pesticides; it is not going to feed the world and in the case of milk, there is plenty of evidence that it is in fact cruel to animals. It would be tempting to line up with Corncopia against Wal Mart, too. We have sent letters urging Wal Mart to take advantage of this "tremendous opportunity to play an important role directing industry to comply with truthful, non-misleading marketing consumer protections while offering consumers diverse choices," and cautioning them to be wary of advisors and their shameful promotion of consumer perception as reality as far as the benefits (NOT) of organic products. We asked Wal Mart to institute a policy of carrying ONLY brands in all marketing categories which fully comply in all labeling and corresponding marketing with the highest government-defined standards for being truthful and non-misleading in all particulars. We have not heard back from them yet, but we are hopeful, now that we know they are fans of the blog!

Consumer Awareness of Biotechnology - Separating Fact from Fiction

Milk is Milk blog by Alex Avery Here's a great post from Terry Etherton's blog. Terry is a Professor of Animal Nutrition and heads the Department of Dairy and Animal Science at Penn State University. PodCast: Consumer Awareness of Biotechnology - Separating Fact from Fiction Terry Etherton's Blog - Penn State University Download the Podcast Transcript: I had the pleasure of speaking at a meeting of dairy producers in Lebanon County, PA on October 25, 2006 about rbST-free milk, and the tactics that some milk cooperatives are using to force producers who use rbST to STOP supplementing cows with rbST. The highlights of this meeting were reported in depth by Sherry Bunting in the October 27, 2006 issue of Farmshine, and the reader of this Blog is encouraged to read this excellent article. There are many important aspects that consumers and dairy producers need to appreciate about rbST-free milk. These include: 1) defending the right of dairy producers to use a safe and effective biotechnology that improves profitability; 2) the tactics employed by some cooperatives to "persuade" producers to stop using the biotechnology (these involve paying a small premium for discontinuing use or levying a charge if use of rbST continues); and 3) the rationale used by some cooperatives, processors and retailers that rbST-free milk is being promoted in the marketplace because of consumer concern about the technology. My view is that the latter argument is simply a "manufactured" justification since there is no evidence from well-organized and conducted surveys of consumer attitudes about food safety that indicates there is any basis to make this distinction from a food safety perspective. On November 2, 2006, the International Food Information Council (IFIC) released a report, Food Biotechnology: A Study of the U.S. Consumer Attitudinal Trends. 2006 Report (see http://ific.org/research/biotechres.cfm). This is an annual report of consumer attitudes about food biotechnology and safety. It provides facts that clearly indicate a significant majority of consumers have no concern about food biotechnology. Approximately 72% of consumers say they are confident about the safety of the U.S. food supply. For those respondents who indicated a concern about some aspect of food safety, most indicated concern about food borne microbial illness (36%) or improper food handling (35%). Only 3% of all consumers indicated biotechnology as a concern. With respect to the latter, this refers to biotechnology in a very broad sense and includes plant and animal biotechnology. It is not specific to rbST-free milk. Moreover, only 1% of consumers indicated that they would like more biotechnology information added to the food label. What does all of this mean? First, there is no scientific evidence that consumer concern is the driving force for the "push" that is occuring to promote rbST-free milk. There is, quite clearly, very little concern about food biotechnology among consumers! Secondly, there is no interest in having information about biotechnology added to the label of milk or dairy products. It is remarkable that 74% of the repondents were unaware that biotech foods are being sold in the supermarket. So, there you have it. The "fiction" that is being peddled about the rbST-free milk issue is that consumer concern is the driving force for cooperatives, processors and retailers to sell the product. As I have written previously, there is no difference between rbST-free milk versus milk from cows supplemented with rbST. What we are witnessing is a ploy to differentiate milk that does not differ compositionally or in any other way from regular milk. The result is a product that sells for appreciably more in the dairy case. Not surprisingly, this mark-up is large (this is a story in itself to see what the difference in price is between milk and the rbST-free version; if you check this in your local grocery story, please let me know). The other part of this margin manipulation is that, surprise, little is returned to the producer.And so, this classic manipulation of margin to enhance profit is carried out at the producer's expense. The much higher price charged by retailers for "rBST-free" milk will not be passed on to producers. In fact, producers will suffer - either when the temporary "premium" for not using rBST is discontinued, or, more directly, if they are charged a premium for using rBST. Consumers also will take a hit because they will be paying higher prices for an illusion. This kind of manipulation in the market place is not new; however, allowing this non-issue to drive milk marketing will have a negative consequence for all of production agriculture. The future viability of animal agriculture depends upon an informed response to this type of marketing approach. Suggesting that consumers are demanding this change in labeling cannot be supported and should be challenged.

Everyone Loses with Organic Lite

Milk is Milk blog by Alex Avery

Recent developments in New England seem to have finally brought some attention to the practice of misleading labeling that has been rampant in the dairy industry for the past few years, most of it negative, but some of it is very positive. The country's biggest milk processing cartel has announced that they are requesting that their suppliers - northeast dairy farmers - discontinue use of the productivity supplement rBST. This announcement has crystallized the debate for a lot of people. Three important points from the media coverage of this announcement:

1. Dairy Farmers are the biggest losers here. While Dean under the brands of Hood and Garelick immediately upped the prices of their milk by as much as 30 cents a half gallon, dairy farmers (according to industry insiders) are being reimbursed a paltry five cents per hundred weight.
2. Consumers lose big too. Dean is banking on the fact that consumers believe organic milk is safer and healthier for them AND that they are not willing to pay twice as much for it. So Dean's plan is to fool them into buying "organic lite," or as the Christian Science Monitor called it "kinda organic."
3. Organic producers are paying attention. Organic standards advocate Mark Kastel of the Cornucopia Institute is rumored to be concerned and watching for misleading labels. They are there, Mark. I'll even help you find them.

To follow up on the Dean's announcement, I had some friends in the northeast do a little grocery shopping for me last weekend. I asked them to look at the various products, their labeling and their prices. I also asked the shoppers, if they had the opportunity, to please ask the dairy case managers what was responsible for the increased prices, and the vast disparity in prices.

Surprisingly, most dairy case managers were not available to answer any questions. The one worker who was did not have any information about the products he was stocking, and went to the store manager's office to report the shopper's presence in the store. Now, I am not prone to conspiracy theories, but could it be that retailers are nervous about the precarious position that Dean's has put them in? I mean, what if consumers started to hold retailers responsible for duping them into spending more of their grocery budget on a product that they believe is safer and healthier and in fact is neither? I'd be nervous because I think retailers are starting to suspect what we have known all along: Milk is milk.