Milk is Milk Blog by Alex Avery
Modern agricultural methods of production, like biotechnology and animal health products, are under attack. Recently, the New York Times printed an article that would seem to take the wind out of the anti-biotech movement. “Facing Biotech Foods without the Fear Factor” by Jane Brody, personal health columnist for the NY Times and a hundred other newspapers, takes an in depth look at the history and current reality of genetic modification, or introducing genes into plants. Her conclusion? GMOs “could raise the standard of living worldwide and better protect the planet from chemical contamination.” That is what technology allows. Getting more from less; giving farmers and ranchers a choice to be more efficient while using fewer resources. But the attacks continue. Why?
Simply follow the money. The issue of food produced with the aid of modern biotechnology has gained increased attention among activist and special interest groups in the United States because it helps line these special interest pockets. Traditional eco-activist and “organic” advocacy groups are emerging as virtual marketing partners with the multi-billion-dollar organic and natural products industry, challenging biotechnology and conventional food product safety. These groups are determined to instill fear in the public about the safety of the food we eat. Funded by a growing industry which benefits from this black marketing, these advocacy groups are generating fear campaigns targeting children and parents. According to a recent article by Oregonians for Food and Shelter, in the long-run, these attacks will hurt all agriculture, organic included.
Milk is no exception. Activists have been spreading rumors that “biotech” milk from cloned cows is headed to a grocery store near you any day now if you don’t act immediately to stop it. Well, they’ve made this warning for more than three years now, and their dire predictions aren’t even close to coming true. From this column, you know that others are baselessly attacking milk producers’ use of supplemental somatotropin (bovine growth hormone) with false claims that the milk is somehow genetically modified or different. It is not, and as made clear by the New York Times, these attacks on biotechnology are simply bogus. And their tactic of targeting children is, well frankly, obscene.
The GE Food Alert coalition, for example, announced a Halloween “scare campaign” a few years back. They have established yet another Web site: www.StopFrankenfood.org to facilitate the sending of email form letters to the FDA as part of its on-line consumer campaign against agricultural biotechnology. Targeting children, their key message is, “Trick… or trick? This Halloween, some of the spookiest stuff out there won’t be found in cemeteries or haunted houses. No, this Halloween, we should all be looking for the freaky foods on our grocery store shelves.”
Lest we forget, these same “public interest” activist groups have a long and well-documented history of similar fear campaigns, all of which have proven to be misleading or outright false. The costs of these campaigns to consumers and producers have been significant. Examples include, the now debunked Alar scare costing apple growers some $150 million and the false silicone breast implant scare which bankrupted Dow Corning. The purpose of such scares, according to a memo by the public relations firm hired to promote them was to increase fundraising for their non-profit activist group clients. This is the same public relations firm hired to promote today’s anti-biotechnology scares.
Indeed, the very reason some products are misleadingly labeled as such is to take advantage of the consumer fears that these campaigns claim to represent. The result is exactly - and deliberately - the opposite of what the campaigners claim to be for: consumer choice. How could this be so?
Consider the choices, or lack thereof, for consumers in the U.K. There are only two types of food choices there, organic and non-biotech conventional. Even if they want the choice of biotech foods that have improved nutritional qualities or are produced with fewer pesticides, they cannot. The reason for the lack of choice is fear-based labeling and activist pressure schemes. These campaigns led to public pressure for food labeling laws declaring whether a food was derived from a biotech-improved crop. UK supermarkets subsequently pulled biotech products from the shelves, lest they lose even a tiny percentage of their customers to the fear campaigns.
News reports suggest UK consumers are now less-informed about their food choices and paying more to boot.
The UK’s food labeling regime, designed to give consumers “choice,” actually degrades the underlying consumer protection principles of their former safety- and content-based system. These consumer protection principles, on which the United States’ current system is based, were established by President Abraham Lincoln in 1861 to stop false and misleading marketing by unscrupulous snake-oil salesmen. Today, modern-day snake-oil salesmen marketing “GMO-free,” “all-natural,” and “organic” products have been cited by both U.S. and U.K. regulators for false and misleading marketing, making unfounded claims about the risks of biotechnology-produced foods, and making false claims about the benefits of foods sold as “GMO-free” or “organic.” The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority has gone so far as to bar organic marketers from making any claims of increased safety, nutrition, or taste.
According to the Wall Street Journal Europe, the institution of GMO labeling in Europe has left consumers more confused with fewer choices.
Farmers are similarly denied choice when they are restricted from using safe technologies in the cultivation of a crop or the production of milk. Once a technology is tested, reviewed and approved by the competent regulatory agency, farmers deserve the choice as to whether they want to use it. When that choice is restricted, farmers are put at a disadvantage - a disadvantage that will only increase as additional restrictions are placed on how they farm.
The choices of food manufacturers and retailers are also restricted by these campaigns and demands. Generally, these businesses make decisions on hard data. Actual data about volume, margins, carrying costs and shelf life are factored into the choices retailers make about the products they sell. If consumers do not want a certain product and, consequently do not buy it, all of the information necessary for a retailer or a manufacturer to make a choice about that product is quantifiable. If manufacturers or retailers start basing their choices on the perceived preferences of the consumer rather than the quantified data, the grocery stores’ shelves would look quite different than they do today.
On October 10, 2002 an Associated Press story from Bozeman, Montana, “Hormone-free milk not setting sales records, Darigold says,” stated “The regional cooperative reported that half-gallon cartons of their milk, which now are all labeled as coming from cows that were not supplemented with recombinant bovine somatotropin, are not selling quite as well as the half-gallons did before the label was added. Darigold began adding the label more than a year ago to satisfy customer demand, said Keith Nye, Darigold’s CEO.” It may be that the true customer demand was not as it was portrayed to be. Consumer research supports this finding - these misleading “absence” claims are not what consumers are looking for to inform their dairy purchasing. These claims create confusion and can upset consumers greatly when they found they’ve been misled. The research shows these labels also harm dairy farmers.
Additionally, the “hormone-free” claim, whether on labels, Web sites or other marketing materials, is simply false and also puts the producer, bottler and retailer selling the product at risk of regulatory wrath from the Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug Administration and state authorities. Not only are these people at risk, according to the FTC their advertising and public relations agencies, Web designers and others involved in promoting these false claims can also be prosecuted.
The greatest concern, however, is what will happen to agriculture and food production when all choices are dictated by those whose ethical or political motivations are the driving factor and who are not involved with the cultivation of an agricultural commodity or the manufacture or sale of a food product. If a form-letter campaign can cause the USDA to prohibit production methods or move a food retailer to exclude all milk produced with the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin, what would it take to have all non-free range chicken products removed from the store shelves?
Absurd? Not really. The question is: Where do we draw the line? There are issues throughout our world where reasonable people do differ on the acceptability and desirability of specific technologies. The use of air conditioning refrigerants and their potential impacts on the ozone layer have long been the subjects of consumer and scientific concern. These concerns are real. The negatives could never be proven prospectively. But consumers of these technologies have made a choice to use them with appropriate safeguards and, more importantly, had the opportunity to make that choice. Consider whether the removal of all potentially ozone depleting materials based on a letter and telephone campaign would be a viable option for a grocery store as it exists today.
Bottom line, everyone should have the choice to operate their lives and their businesses as they wish within the laws of their country. Total discrimination against products of modern biotechnology based solely on a vocal so-called public interest group with a dubious and self-serving agenda will deny farmers, food manufacturers, food retailers and consumers the opportunity to make a choice about biotechnology. Retailers are also at risk when they carry or promote these products and claims, as regulators and litigators have demonstrated their willingness to punish those engaged in these practices.
Be cautious about giving away this freedom of choice - it is a hard freedom to regain once gone. And remember, milk is milk.