This “Horn of Plenty” is Full of Something - B.S.

Milk is Milk blog by Alex Avery

The definition of cornucopia is a horn of plenty or a horn-shaped basket usually full of grain and fruit that is a representation of abundance. There was something about some recent news reports that included quotes from a group called the Cornucopia Institute which didn’t seem right - let’s just say they didn’t smell like fresh fruits and grain, more like B.S.

A “non-profit” institute by the same name as our horn of plenty is making news attacking certain dairy producers; however, a peak behind the scenes suggests the Cornucopia Institute may merely be a marketing arm for a competing dairy interest - Organic Valley. Lest you forget, Organic Valley has been profiled here before for their black marketing tactics ranging from lobbying campaigns to steal your kid’s lunch money to gross distortions about the safety of their competitors’ products during times of public food safety concerns.

They appear to be at it again, but this time they are going after one of their own - Horizon Organic. If you read this blog you know that I’m no fan of Horizon - which engages in many of the same types of black marketing shenanigans, but even Horizon deserves a fair break when their competitors use a shill group to attack them. News articles and television broadcasts appearing across the globe - this story even appeared in India! - have recently profiled a rift within the multi-billion dollar organic dairy industry placing industry leader Horizon Organic on the hot seat. ABC News and USA Today are among those reporting on attacks by the Cornucopia Institute, which is described by these news media geniuses as a “non-profit farm policy research group based in Wisconsin.”

The question ABC, USA Today and the dozens of others reporting on Cornucopia’s attack failed to ask was, just who the heck are you guys? It’s clear that basic journalistic practice simply doesn’t apply anymore, because a quick Google search (removing the word “cornucopia”) on Cornucopia’s press release contact name “Mark Kastel” reveals that at the same Mark Kastel is a public relations consultant to Organic Valley - a fact oddly missing from the “about us” page at Cornucopia’s Web site. News reports and press statements from Cornucopia have almost all included positive statements about Organic Valley practices in contrast with those used by their competitor Horizon. Hmmm, I wonder who tipped them off to call Organic Valley after receiving the Cornucopia release - perhaps Mr. Kastel?

Oddly, a Nexis search of news articles reveals dozens of stories about Organic Valley which quote and specifically note “Mark Kastel of Organic Valley” as a source. So while Mr. Kastel’s failure to disclose his conflict of interest by being paid by Organic Valley on one hand while attacking their competitors on the other, the journalists have very little excuse for missing this significant point in their coverage of this issue.

A bigger question to ask, where does the Cornucopia Institute get its money. Is any of their funding coming from Organic Valley other than what they pay Mr. Kastel? Cornucopia’s Web site was registered and created in January of 1999 while Mr. Kastel was still being reported in the news media as “of Organic Valley” suggesting he created this organization while still on their payroll. When not attacking Organic Valley’s competitors, Cornucopia has been attacking the safety of conventional agriculture and lobbying federal regulators on issues that benefit Organic Valley. It seems that if Organic Valley is paying for this in any way - and getting a charitable tax deduction to boot - then perhaps that’s not what the IRS and others intended when they created the rules about “non-profit” tax deductible organizations. Perhaps ABC News or USA Today will consider asking some questions about that next time they get a press release or story tip from the nice people at Cornucopia or Organic Valley.

Tillamook decision will harm farmers and consumers

Milk is Milk Blog by Alex Avery

Here is a side of an important story for both dairy producers and dairy consumers that you most likely won’t see in the mainstream media or special interest activist press releases. Tillamook Creamery, an Oregon dairy cooperative known for their branded cheese, has issued an edict to its 143 dairy farmer members that they must cease use of an FDA-approved productivity supplement known as bovine somatotropin (rbST). This supplement is used to maintain a dairy cow’s naturally occurring levels of growth hormone which in turn increases milk production by as much as 15 percent.

Supplemental rbST is an important tool for dairy producers as it allows them to produce more milk with fewer cows and fewer resources. That means higher profits for farmers and reduced impacts on our environment. Oh, and since bST is found naturally in all cows, it doesn’t alter the milk one bit. Just to repeat, it’s the same milk. Period. For many family dairy farmers, the use of rbST and other safe, government-approved animal health and productivity tools is the only way they can remain competitive and economically viable.

Sadly, activists and unscrupulous for-profit marketing groups have been attacking this important productivity tool for dairy farmers for more than a decade, falsely alleging a range of human health and animal welfare scares. The scientific, animal welfare and medical evidence supporting the use of this product is overwhelming and comprehensive, yet ignored by those seeking to profit from food fear campaigns.

Tillamook recently came under attack by some of our activist pals, funded by unscrupulous dairy marketing interests, claiming that “consumers” were demanding “rbST-free” cheese - in misleading activist parlance, “hormone-free.” First, ask Tillamook. Before the activists showed up, were any of their actual customers asking for this change? If Tillamook consumers are at all representative of virtually every piece of credible consumer research on this subject the answer would be none. The vast majority of consumers care about fresh, safe, nutritious, affordable dairy products, not how they were produced. Without prompting, consumers rarely–if ever-mention production issues like rbST-use as a factor influencing their purchasing decisions. The activists, in this case, proudly proclaimed that in a short period of time they generated more than 6,000 comments to Tillamook from their ranks. Activist demand does not equal consumer purchasing.

Starbucks coffee found this reality out the expensive way. The same activists generated so-called “consumer” comments demanding Starbucks sell only organic and rbST-free milk with their coffee. Starbucks compromised and offered an organic option for consumers. But as you’ve read here, they ended up throwing more of this away than they sold. It is worth repeating: Activist demands do not result in consumer purchasing. What do these demands do? They increase dairy farmer costs while lowering animal productivity. This results in higher costs for consumers. The net result? Less milk is consumed, supporting a goal of many of the activists to end all forms of animal agriculture. This also makes certain dairy products, like organic, marketed by the same people funding the activists, more competitive.

Second, ask Tillamook why they reportedly established a legal defense fund when they started to consider dictating to their members that they not use government-approved animal health and productivity tools. Tillamook knows that there is a liability from both the economic harm this could cause their member dairies as well as a consumer liability if people buy their product because they’ve been misled to believe their product is somehow different based on their non-use of supplemental rbST.

The family dairy farmers who supply Tillamook know this and know the activists’ game. In fact, a majority of Tillamook’s farmers (over 80) signed a petition opposing this decision to ban rbST use. Dairy producer surveys we’ve conducted in California and the Pacific Northwest also reveal that producers who have been asked to end their use of rbST or other production tools are not being indemnified against any potential regulatory or civil litigation costs by those making these demands like Tillamook.

The problem is, once Tillamook’s management let the activist genie out of the bottle, it was hard to stop their media and propaganda machinery from threatening the company’s reputation and products. The risk and concern for the potential for activist blackmail and negative media coverage was such that Tillamook members were actually cowed into voting against a proposal which would simply make it coop policy that would allow the use of any Food and Drug Administration-approved animal health product.

Opposing the use of government approved, scientifically proven safe tools while supporting activist-driven, unscientific claims opposing such tools is just plain wrong.

Tillamook claims it has no plans to label their products based on this new policy, a practice we know to be highly misleading and defamatory to dairy products in general. However, Tillamook has not outlined what measures it will take to ensure that those who sell their product won’t engage in false or misleading marketing. Tillamook has not indicated how it will ensure its members’ profitability and competitiveness against others who can use rbST. Tillamook has not indicated what measures they will put in place to address the environmental damage by removing this efficiency tool. Remember no use of rbST means more cows producing milk less efficiently — and all the stuff they need and their associated outputs. Can you say greenhouse gases? Shame on Tillamook!

Remember, milk is milk and activists who oppose all forms of animal agriculture and openly admit that they don’t really consume your products should not dictate to you what your customers want or get.

Don’t get Milked by this Shakedown Artist

Milk is Milk Blog by Alex Avery

Well, after a brief delay here is my promised response to the recent attacks by Organic Consumers Association coercion artist Ronnie Cummins and cancer-scare monger Samuel Epstein. As we expounded on ACCR-ranked “least credible scientist on issues of environmental cancer” Samuel Epstein last week, we’ll give Mr. Cummins his 15 minutes of shame today.

Ronnie Cummins’ “Organic Consumers Association” (OCA) is run by a mix of hard-core animal-rights vegetarian activists, militant Green Party political campaigners, “Light Party” cult (actually a front for a holistic health and healing group) adherents, Ayurvedic health practitioners and “Noetic sciences” alternative lifestyle followers. They are truly a merry little band of extremists. Except unlike other innocuous wackos exercising their rights to eat whatever politically-correct-de-jour food, chant and treat illnesses by drinking their urine and animal dung (really) in peace and quiet, these guys demand we all adopt their quasi-political food and lifestyle preferences and stop any other competition or alternative regardless of the cost or consequence.

OCA has publicly stated their goal is 100% organic agriculture within the next 50 years. That’s 100%, no choices, no alternatives. Since the public doesn’t seem to be on the same track (currently organic production is less than 5% and holding), Mr. Cummins and pals use a variety of scare and intimidation tactics to force their views on us. Is this artful coercion or simple blackmail? You decide.

Mr. Cummins got his food campaigning start as an acolyte of anti-technology activist Jeremy Rifkin running a campaign to force McDonald’s and American fast food chains to replace beef hamburgers with veggie burger alternatives. His “Beyond Beef” campaign didn’t exactly succeed as most sane people didn’t agree with his tenet that beef was a “new form of human evil.” Rifkin’s Foundation on Economic Trends then spawned a new organization, The International Center for Technology Assessment/Center for Food Safety, in which Cummins and fellow Rifkin co-worker Andrew Kimbrell hung out their shingles. For several years Cummins ran his “pure food” campaign, later renamed the Organic Consumers Association, from Kimbrell’s Washington Offices before formalizing OCA and moving to Minnesota.

Lest I be accused of not giving Mr. Cummins’ curriculum vitae its due, I should note that he’s not just a professional activist. He’s also noted to be a for-profit alternative products industry consultant and author. Between campaigns, Mr. Cummins is a children’s book author - writing about happy children enjoying the benefits of the political regimes in Cuba and then-Sandinista-led Nicaragua. Let’s just say that along with such titles as “Daddy Drinks Because You Cry” and “The Kid’s Guide to Hitchhiking” we don’t think Golden Books will be publishing any of Mr. Cummins’ titles anytime soon. His other day job is with an association of organic and socially responsible businesses called “Green People.” Cummins is an organizer of this profitable little group whose services include promoting the “eco-friendly” products industry and providing vegetarian dating services.

Similar to Cummins’ other shakedown campaigns, Green People’s tactics appear to include targeting the non-organic competitors of their “socially-responsible” member companies by threatening reputations and using the Internet for misleading and false disinformation campaigns. Green People, in addition to hosting OCA’s Web campaigns, is also host to numerous “YourCompany-Sucks” Web sites targeting everyone from Kmart to Pepsi. Such tactics reveal the true darker shade of these “Green People.” This modus operandi (M.O.) of making demands while threatening reputations of anyone who doesnÂ’t conform is by definition a shakedown.

A recent example of one of Cummin’s shakedowns was his partially successful, albeit revealing, attack on Starbucks. Cummins demanded that Starbucks adopt a 100% non-GMO and organic policy (a misleading assertion to be sure, as even organic foods are derived from plants which have been genetically altered via chemical mutagenesis) for their milk, coffee and food products. He did so admitting that the real reason he was going after Starbucks - a relatively small player in the milk and coffee purchasing environment - was the company’s public admission that it cared about its reputation as socially responsible. Starbucks’ CEO Orin Smith accused OCA of “spreading inaccurate and grossly misleading” information noting that OCA targeted Starbucks as a socially responsible company “only to generate publicity.” You bet. But Starbucks, like most companies facing these types of shakedowns wanted a low-cost-out and actually acquiesced to Mr. Cummins’ demands - or so they thought.

You see, Starbucks thought OCA simply wanted consumers to have organic choices so they offered their consumers organic coffee, organic soy and organic milk options. They even subsidized the costs of these new offerings to make them more affordable. That seems pretty nice, but it appears that Starbucks forgot to do their research on OCA, which would have shown them their stated goal of “100% organic ONLY” and history of corporate shakedowns to achieve it. As this offering only demonstrated Starbucks’ willingness to make accommodations to OCA, their campaign not only didn’t end, it has intensified. OCA has publicly acknowledged it won’t be satisfied until 100% of their demands are met. Lesson here: there is no negotiating with these guys; don’t even think of trying.

But where does that leave Starbucks shareowners and customers? They’ve both footed the bill for the cost of subsidizing Starbucks’ initial offer in response to OCA’s demands and they continue to pay the cost of responding to the ongoing campaign assaults (faxes, phone calls, protests) on their stores. And did their customers really want organic milk and coffee? At least regarding milk, the answer appears to be no. As I’ve previously reported, Starbucks around the country are quietly phasing out their organic milk option. Why? Well, as one Starbucks employee recently told me, “We throw away more of this stuff than we sell.”

So here we have a company seeking to protect its reputation as socially responsible by acquiescing to threats from activist groups claiming consumers are demanding a certain type of product while falsely claiming the existing product is unsafe. Yet, it turns out there was no consumer demand, the company is now forced to quietly alter a practice it promised to the shakedown activists, and even after subsidizing the costs they company was forced to throw away food that couldn’t be sold. I’m sorry, but a nice donation to help feed the poor (rather than throw away food) would probably be a more socially responsible move and would not likely anger shareholders and customers left with the bill for playing a dangerous game of accommodation with extremist-view activists.

Oh, and who is footing the bill for Mr. Cummins’ campaigns to force companies to buy organic milk, organic soy and other organic products? It shouldn’t surprise you to learn that OCA’s listed financial sponsors are organic milk, organic soy and organic food companies. Yup, the organic and natural products industry, which touts itself as “socially responsible” is paying Ronnie Cummin’s Organic Consumers Association to attack the safety of their competitors with false and misleading claims while blackmailing retailers like Starbucks into replacing those safe, affordable products with their higher-priced alternatives.

Message to retailers currently under attack by OCA – like Trader Joe’s, Wal-Mart, Shaw’s, Kroger, Albertsons and Safeway - next time a group of non-dairy-consuming vegans tries to tell you what milk or other products your customers demand (even when there is no valid research or actual sales data to support this) and then they use money from companies who benefit from selling these products to try and force-feed your customers higher-priced products they don’t want, think twice before acquiescing. And don’t forget, in addition to being bad for consumers and the principle of real consumer choice, these demands you make of your suppliers harm family dairy farm economics and can negatively impact the environment. Lest you be concerned about social responsibility, take a lesson from Starbucks and consider the social cost of throwing away food and further damage to your reputations when the activists inevitably make more demands.

Milk is milk; don’t let Ronnie Cummins or anybody else strong arm you into thinking otherwise.