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!

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.