As you all know, there has been a lot of debate recently about the merits of the “rbST hormone-free” or the more aptly-named organic-lite movement in the dairy industry. Put aside for a moment the fact that no milk is hormone-free, no farmer “adds rbST to milk” and marketing claims suggesting otherwise are considered false by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Let’s shift focus to the issue of companies now trying to require dairy farmers stop using rbST in milk production; an issue that received much attention at last week’s Dairy Summit in Lancaster, PA.

As one Summit attendee shared with me, it appears that the very executives at these companies who decided to unfairly restrict farmers’ freedom to use safe, scientifically sound technologies are in fact the same executives who know next to nothing about the dairy farming business. In all their haste to turn a profit and be applauded by the anti-farming activists and misinformed socially responsible organic food Nazis, these companies have remained ignorant to the following issues:

Lack of Evidence to Support Consumer Demand: Fact: no published research shows any consumer demand for milk from cows not receiving supplemental rbST. In fact, most consumer research shows the public doesn’t even know what rbST is. These companies have touted altruistic intentions behind their decision to no longer accept milk produced with rbST, claiming the decision had been made in response to growing consumer demand. These companies, however, have failed to provide any substantial evidence to support this consumer demand, with executives continually referring back to research done by their own companies or claims by severely biased groups like the Organic Consumers Association. Instead, it may be that companies are more interested in increased profits through charging a premium for a milk product that is identical to all other milk products, or that they have simply succumbed to the pressure of groups like Ralph Nader’s Food and Water Watch. These well-funded activists continue to use scare tactic efforts to mislead consumers and fabricate the notion of consumer demand for “hormone-free” products. Oh, and their funding comes in large part from the mega-organic dairy companies who benefit from the fear campaigns.

Economic Hardship Incurred by Farmers: Many dairy farmers rely on rbST and other technologies to produce more milk from fewer cows, thereby reducing overhead costs in the face of dismally low milk prices paid to producers. At the PA Dairy Summit one Dean Foods executive was asked about the alleged premiums promised to producers to stop using rbST. Much to the chagrin of farmers in attendance, the executive replied that he knew nothing about it. What’s even more outrageous is that this same Deans executive openly confessed that he’s never actually been on a farm!

A small dairy producer milking 250 cows (yes, in today’s market that’s a small dairy farm) will net nearly $30,000 in profits by using supplemental rbST. In addition, by producing more milk with fewer cows this dairy producer will leave less of an environmental footprint. That’s the win-win for consumers, dairy producers and the environment. However, Dean Foods is either not paying any premium or not nearly enough to make a dent in the real losses farmers incur by giving up this tool. $30,000 for a small dairy farmer is going to mean the difference between keeping the family farm or going under. Dean Foods’ demands for rbST-free milk from producers will result in putting hundreds, if not thousands, of small dairy families out of business, period. The big producers will survive earning less and less money while Dean’s takes their losses to the bank.

Dean Foods currently is the leading promoter of higher-costing rbST-free organic-lite milk with over a dozen products currently labeled with a range of misleading hormone-related absence claims. In addition, Dean Food CEO Greg Engles touted on a recent call with financial analysts that hormone claims are a growth opportunity to sell more of his higher-priced organic milk stating: “The emergence of the rbST-free category is evidence that the category (milk) will continue to fragment… the absence of artificial hormones is one of the drivers of organic milk…” In fact, the power point presentation by the Deans exec in Pennsylvania referred over and over to “AHF”—artificial hormone free.

Dean Foods and other “organic-lite” brands marketing hormone-absence claims sell for an additional $1.00 or more per gallon, but farmers aren’t seeing any of that money. In fact, while consumer milk retail prices have been skyrocketing, the price farmers are paid (farm gate) for milk has remained flat.

All the while consumers are drinking less and less milk. Why? Well, survey and focus group research suggests that hormone claims and high-prices are scaring them away!

The Presence of Hormones Actually in Milk: Many in attendance at the Dairy Summit voiced concern to dairy company executives about what would happen when, after marketing “hormone-free milk,” consumers found out that all milk naturally has more than 25 hormones and that the only hormone added to milk is Vitamin D. Once again, these concerns fell on deaf ears.

Unfortunately, all this big dairy company profiteering harms not only dairy farmers, but consumers as well. Health conscious people, especially parents worried about providing the best food for their children, are being duped out of extra money by paying a premium for milk products without any additional health benefits. Research by Dr. Harry Kaiser at Cornell and Dr. Jeremy Folz at the University of Wisconsin shows that increasing the cost of milk causes consumers to stop buying milk and that hormone absence claims are more likely to sway economically disadvantaged and lower-educated consumers who can least afford the higher-priced milk. In fact, for about every 5 percent increase in milk costs one consumer stops buying milk. Dean’s organic-lite, rbST-free milk is an average of 75 percent more expensive than unlabeled milk (and their organic brands are as much as 150 percent more expensive!). Consumers who cannot afford milk then turn to less healthy options like flavored juice drinks and sodas for their families. Even worse, I am hearing from folks in the Northeast that due to the predominance of the Hood and Garelick labeled brands, they have no choice at all—there is no lower cost milk available at many grocery stores.

It looks like these companies have hopped on the profit-through-misinformation bandwagon and they plan to take everyone else for a ride as well. It is a real tragedy because as they should know milk is milk.