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.