Milk is Milk blog by Alex Avery

In August of 2006, we unveiled our billboards along California’s Highway 99, in an effort to educate consumers about a simple fact: Milk is Milk. Our efforts have received a lot of response, most of which has been positive. However, it looks like we touched a raw nerve with at least one reader of our blog. A friend of the Milk is Milk blog sent in this photo, showing our billboard in Pixley, CA defaced with a message from an uninformed and reckless scofflaw. We have reported the defacement to the billboard company, as well as to the local police.

Clearly the culprit behind this vandalism does not value his or her life, engaging in two very dangerous activities: defacing private property, and advocating for raw milk.

The benefits of milk pasteurization have been proved time and time again. Consuming unpasteurized dairy products poses a serious health risk, especially for children and those with weak immune systems. More information on the dangers of raw milk can be found on our Milk is Milk Web site.

can be found on our Milk is Milk Web site.can be found on our Milk is Milk Web site.

Starbucks has taken a wrong turn on the road to social responsibility. I have always admired how Starbucks stood fast in their refusal to kowtow to activists and advocacy groups who make a career out of demanding one thing or another in their strategy to rid the world of modern conveniences. Recently, the Ralph Nader spin off group Food and Water Watch took on the years-long Organic Consumers Association campaign against Starbucks, asking among other things that they offer organic milk at no higher cost; that they sell only products that do not contain any gmos, and that they discontinue the purchasing of milk produced with the help of rBST. Starbucks has never capitulated and always maintained that they would listen to their customers. Until now.

Food and Water Watch has carried on far more feverishly than OCA ever did, and apparently that heat got to Starbucks, who recently responded to a FWW “action” that they were working to increase their supply of “rBST-free” milk. Starbucks has made the mistake of hearing advocacy noise as consumer requests. (Six staffers and their children dressed as cows should not count as consumer demand). And that is bad news for America’s dairy farmers, not to mention the environment and consumers who will now have to pay more for a product that is NO DIFFERENT!

Dairy processors are so afraid of the growth in the organic sector that they have completely made up a sector of their own, referred to in the media as organic lite. The only distinction is that this milk is labeled as having been produced from cows not treated with rBST. This is designed so all those mothers believe they are buying hormone free milk, or milk that does not contain antibiotics or any of the other litany of made up complaints against a product used safely and effectively by thousands of dairy farmers over the last decade. Even the Today Show recently compared organic and conventional milk and could find absolutely no difference between them.

Monsanto, the company that makes rBST, (and yes, they are one of the many occasional funders of the Hudson Institute, parent of CGFI–move on already) should consider their own action against FWW for slander, for maligning a product that science–not emotion–has proved to be safe. Although of course they would be painted as the big bad corporation picking on the poor little advocacy group, despite their Goliath like budget, and Public Citizen’s patron saint Ralph Nader.

Where are the groups like Cornucopia defending small dairy farmers and their right to use approved products on their farms? Where are the environmentalists, pointing out how much these decisions increase the amount of land, water, and other natural resources needed to produce our food? Where are the consumers, righteously indignant that they have been duped into paying more for bogus claims or implied benefits that do not exist? If any of you want to talk, you know how to reach me.

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.

Milk is Milk blog by Alex Avery

Recent developments in New England seem to have finally brought some attention to the practice of misleading labeling that has been rampant in the dairy industry for the past few years, most of it negative, but some of it is very positive. The country’s biggest milk processing cartel has announced that they are requesting that their suppliers - northeast dairy farmers - discontinue use of the productivity supplement rBST. This announcement has crystallized the debate for a lot of people. Three important points from the media coverage of this announcement:

1. Dairy Farmers are the biggest losers here. While Dean under the brands of Hood and Garelick immediately upped the prices of their milk by as much as 30 cents a half gallon, dairy farmers (according to industry insiders) are being reimbursed a paltry five cents per hundred weight.
2. Consumers lose big too. Dean is banking on the fact that consumers believe organic milk is safer and healthier for them AND that they are not willing to pay twice as much for it. So Dean’s plan is to fool them into buying “organic lite,” or as the Christian Science Monitor called it “kinda organic.”
3. Organic producers are paying attention. Organic standards advocate Mark Kastel of the Cornucopia Institute is rumored to be concerned and watching for misleading labels. They are there, Mark. I’ll even help you find them.

To follow up on the Dean’s announcement, I had some friends in the northeast do a little grocery shopping for me last weekend. I asked them to look at the various products, their labeling and their prices. I also asked the shoppers, if they had the opportunity, to please ask the dairy case managers what was responsible for the increased prices, and the vast disparity in prices.

Surprisingly, most dairy case managers were not available to answer any questions. The one worker who was did not have any information about the products he was stocking, and went to the store manager’s office to report the shopper’s presence in the store. Now, I am not prone to conspiracy theories, but could it be that retailers are nervous about the precarious position that Dean’s has put them in? I mean, what if consumers started to hold retailers responsible for duping them into spending more of their grocery budget on a product that they believe is safer and healthier and in fact is neither? I’d be nervous because I think retailers are starting to suspect what we have known all along: Milk is milk.

Milk is Milk blog by Alex Avery

Hello all from the World Dairy Expo in Madison, Wisconsin. We’ve been here for the past few days manning a booth informing dairy farmers and consumers about the rampant misleading labeling practices in the dairy industry.

Not so surprisingly, we’ve been swamped with praise and thanks from the majority of dairy farmers (of various production philosophies) who don’t engage in “mislead and deceive” labeling to sell expensive milk.

It’s so heartening to get such enthusiastic support from people who know that hormone, drug, antibiotic, and pesticide claims are just wrong and intended to mislead consumers.

As one dairy scientist who approached our booth said, “the best lab in the world can’t find any difference between the milk [from those making such claims] and conventional.” That’s exactly what we’ve been saying all along.

Alas, not all at the World Dairy Expo are as supportive. It seems that farmers making big bucks via the misleading claims aren’t too happy that they’re being exposed and called out for their questionable marketing practices.

While we expect the occasional organic farmer to stop by and argue with us (and several have done so - mostly from Organic Valley), we didn’t expect the visit we received yesterday from a small gang of twenty-something organic jihadists. Before you think I’m hurling over-the-top insults, hear me out.

The group of young bucks (one supplied Organic Valley with milk) surrounded our table and tried to intimidate us with dark glares and muttered insults. When that didn’t work, they retreated to the steps a few feet away from our booth and glared some more. After they finally dispersed about 20 minutes after they first arrived, we saw that had left us a “warning” — they had beheaded one of the squishy “stress relief” toy cows we’ve been handing out to young and old (a wildly popular item). On the side of the poor, beheaded toy, they’d written “conventional.”

That about sums up their whole strategy: lie, deceive, bluster, and intimidate. But they’ll have to do better than that to make us stop telling it like it is.

Stay tuned, we have a feeling that the milk misinformation campaign is about to heat up.

Conflicting Claims from State Agencies and Producer

Milk is Milk blog by Alex Avery

Last Thursday, September 21, 2006, the California State Veterinarian ordered a statewide recall and quarantine for all dairy products from Organic Pastures of Fresno County after a report that a 10-year old girl in San Bernardino County contracted E. coli O157:H7 after consuming raw (unpasteurized) milk supplied by the company.

An investigation by the California Department of Health Services (CDHS) found two additional illnesses in children consuming raw milk, one 7-year old boy from Riverside County and and 8-year old San Diego County girl.

A call to the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) confirmed that all Organic Pastures’ dairy products had been recalled and quarantined.

Moreover, CDFA indicates that their investigation leads them to believe that a total of four children have contracted O157:H7 from Organic Pastures’ products — three from consuming raw milk and one after consuming raw colostrum. (Colostrum is defined as the first collection of a thick creamy liquid, without blood or infection, produced by the mammary gland of a parturient mother shortly after birth, usually within the first 6 hours. Colostrum is sold as a “dietary supplement” in California.)

In all, three of the four victims linked to Organic Pastures products went to a hospital, two are in intensive care suffering Hemolytic Uremic Syndrom (HUS) and kidney failure.

Testing of two of the four victims has shown that the genetic serotype of E. coli O157:H7 is distinctly different than the serotype implicated in the recent spinach outbreak - indicating that this outbreak is completely separate from the spinach outbreak.

Importantly, CDFA spokesman Steve Lyle says that a day or two prior to the illness outbreak and product recall, the agency had notified Organic Pastures that routine testing conducted by the state (conducted to protect consumers) had found two consecutive tests for bacteria in Organic Pastures’ milk had “high plate counts” of bacteria. CDFA informed the company that it had three days to bring the plate counts down to reasonable levels or face a shutdown of its operations. It was during that 3-day period when the illness cases were discovered and the recall was ordered.

But Organic Pastures owner Mark McAfee disputes the claims of the CDFA and CDHS. According to McAfee, he has threatened the state with a $100 million dollar lawsuit and predicted that his products would be back on store shelves before the end of this week and that the state agencies would issue an official apology and retraction.

As to the tests showing high levels of bacteria, McAfee stated that “we run high plate counts all the time” and that none of the plate counts were above the “15,000 bacteria per milliliter” standard required by California regulators. Yet CDFA informs MilkisMilk.com that, in fact, two of Organic Pastures’ samples tested above the 15,000 CFU standard and that this is not the first time that the dairy’s products have exceeded this standard.

In contradiction of the statements from the CDFA, none of the test results listed on Organic Pastures’ website exceed the 15,000 level.

Upon questioning the benefits of consuming raw milk products, McAfee referred MilkisMilk.com to the work of “Cambridge doctor, and MD, Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride” on “Gut and Psychology Syndrome” indicating that consumption of raw milk prevents autism and other diseases. However, when we searched for Dr. Campbell-McBride in the scholarly literature, we find that she has no affiliation with Cambridge University and has authored no scholarly papers of any sort. Rather, Dr. Campbell-McBride has a medical degree from Russia and runs an “alternative health clinic” (in the city of Cambridge) where she sells nutritional supplements and a book claiming that “bad gut flora” lead to autism and other “diseases.”

We are awaiting further information from the CDFA on this outbreak and the fate of Organic Pastures dairy products.

Milk is Milk Blog by Alex Avery

I was pleasantly surprised recently to get a call from Andrew Pollack of the NY Times. He is apparently working on a story on the Milk is Milk debate and wanted my input. Despite my certainty of the direction the article will ultimately take, I was more than happy to share my knowledge of the issues and our role in the debate. I talked about the many companies who are using fear to mislead consumers into paying more for a product that they believe is safer and healthier when in fact it is neither. I referred him to prior blog posts, where I point out that groups positioning themselves as defenders of family farms are really only defenders of the market share for one corporation. I told him about our various campaigns, billboards, advertising, store checks, regulatory complaints, all carried out so that consumers know the truth about their purchases. But there was a disturbing aspect to our conversation: each time I attempted to explain the science that guarantees that milk is milk, Mr. Pollack repeatedly told me he was not interested in the science, only the politics. I tried to explain that the lack of attention to the science is precisely what has led to the misleading marketing of dairy products; that there would be no politics if the science was the basis for the debate! Yet nothing I could say appeared to dissuade him from his pre-determined mission to ignore the science and write solely about the politics. It is like discussing the Soviet Union without mentioning communism. I am extremely disappointed that a talented writer like Andrew Pollack, writing for a paper read by millions of Americans and others around the world, would be so shortsighted. I gave Pollack the names and numbers of some dairy farmers; I hope they will have better luck convincing Mr. Pollack that milk is indeed milk.

Milk is Milk Blog by Alex Avery

I came across a press release from a company touting its “Ultrapure” line of dairy products. Here’s a line from the release: “As more and more consumers reach for organic milk for its health benefits and to help combat the routine use of antibiotics and growth hormones used on cows, increased demand has pushed prices of organic milk out of many consumers’ reach. For consumers who want ultra-pure milk without having to pay the ultra-premium price, a new option has emerged with Mountainside Farms UltraPure(TM) milk, an affiliate of Elmhurst Dairy, Inc., New York City’s largest milk supplier.”

Say no more. If Elmhurst is behind it, I am already suspicious that there will be misleading labeling involved. But I digress. The press release continues, “Mountainside Farms UltraPure(TM) milk represents an exciting new category that bridges the gap between conventional milk and organic milk.” (There is no gap - the milk is the same, no matter how it was produced.) “Combining environmentally friendly business practices with the use of innovative UltraPure(TM) technology in the processing stage, Mountainside Farms is able to produce purer, better tasting milk that is free of hormones and antibiotics, with improved shelf life.” (Free of hormones? Wow, that is a breakthrough! Wait - it is not possible for milk to be free of hormones and all milk naturally contains more than 25 hormones. And most, including those supplying organic and Elmhurst dairies, use health and reproductive hormone injections such as Prostaglandin and Oxytocin critical to dairy cow reproductive health practices. And improved shelf-life usually means that the milk has been boiled and boiled again.)

“Our customers have been telling us that they want access to many of the qualities that organic milk provides, but didn’t want to pay the $4 to $5 charge per half gallon.” (What qualities are those, as to date no health, safety or taste benefits have been found or proven.) “UltraPure(TM) gives them many of the same health benefits at a cost that’s closer to that of conventional milk,” said Cyrus Schwartz, president of Mountainside Farms and fifth generation member of the Schwartz family who founded Elmhurst.” (Ahem. To what health benefits do you refer? I have not been able to find ANY study or research that backs up this claim.) And if you needed any more misleading claims to turn your head, the release goes on “To ensure the freshest and purest milk, Mountainside Farms tests all of its milk for the presence of the six antibiotics most commonly used on dairy cows, surpassing the mandatory testing required by state and federal regulations by 20 percent.” This is just malarkey of the first degree. ALL milk is tested and retested for the presence of antibiotics. If there is even a TRACE of antibiotics, the milk is thrown out! There is not a dairy farmer in the world who can afford to WASTE his valuable commodity! I won’t repeat any more of their other claims regarding growth hormones and bacteria as I have heard enough.

I have a theory. I have not been able to validate this with anyone in the dairy industry (surprise surprise!) But I think I am on to something. Could this “exciting new category” be Organic Lite? A false niche market created on the backs of hardworking dairy farmers by taking away tools that allow them to get more from less - and without even paying them the so-called “premiums” that organic interests offer?

The facts about “organic lite” and similar black marketing have been made clear by research which shows:

• It damages the overall dairy market, driving a percentage of consumers away from milk altogether - we’ve seen a 14 percent decline in fluid milk consumption corresponding with the growth of these marketing tactics!
• It economically harms dairy producers, increasing their costs while driving down the price people pay for milk not using these false marketing claims
• It misleads consumers into paying more for products that are exactly the same (with the exception that they are often ultra-pasteurized for longer shelf life - read “older milk” as the higher priced milk doesn’t sell as quickly)

We will be watching to see if this press release entices any easily-duped reporters into writing about this. This is outrageous and it is time for action. From regulators, from law makers, and most importantly from the dairy industry itself. Because they know that Milk is Milk.

Milk is Milk Blog by Alex Avery

I found this great article on CalorieLab.com. Like MIM, it is in blog format and was developed “to provide dieters with quick and simple access to the information necessary to lose or maintain weight.” Written by Karen Collins, a registered dietician, the article states that the health claims producers of organic milk make are unfounded and conventional milk is just as healthy as organic milk. I think she says it so well, that I am just going to post her thoughts here and hope she does not mind. Bravo, Karen!

“Demand for organic milk, which can sell for up to double the cost of other milk, is booming. Deciding whether to spend the extra money is not as clear-cut a decision as some suggest. People may turn to organic milk for health benefits, or environmental and animal rights’ issues. When evaluating the health claims, thus far, research does not support a health advantage of organic over conventional milk for any segment of the population.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) requires four characteristics to define milk as organic, and confusion abounds about each.

Bovine growth hormone. Milk that is labeled “USDA Organic” must come from cows that have not been treated with bovine growth hormone (BGH) to increase milk production. People who focus on this goal express concern that hormones in milk could raise the risk of hormone-related cancers, or lead to higher levels of an insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) linked with cancer.

However, BGH is a protein hormone, which means that if any does appear in milk, enzymes and acid in our digestive tract destroy it. Dale Bauman, a professor of animal science at Cornell University, emphasizes that if IGF-1 is slightly higher in milk from BGH-treated cows, it represents a tiny fraction of the IGF we all produce each day. Bauman reports that we would have to drink 95 quarts of milk to equal the IGF-1 we make daily in our saliva and other digestive tract secretions.

We need to differentiate between levels of IGF in our blood, which some studies link to a possible increase in cancer risk, and levels of IGF in our food. Several organic-related web sites refer to a study in which vegans (who eat no animal products) showed 13 percent lower IGF than non-vegans.

However, a closer look at that study shows that milk consumption was not related to blood levels of IGF. Research shows high blood levels of IGF are linked with overweight, lack of exercise, and diets too high in saturated fat, refined carbohydrates or total calories.

Antibiotics. A second characteristic of organic milk is that these cows are not treated with antibiotics. If a cow in an organic herd does need to be treated with antibiotics, she is not returned to the herd for a period of 12 months. Yet in conventional herds, milk from cows that receive antibiotics is not used until tests show it is antibiotic-free. Tanks of milk are routinely tested to ensure no antibiotic content.

Pesticides. A third requirement of organic milk is that cows’ feed is grown without pesticides, whether the feed is grass or grain. Recent USDA reports show that nonorganic milk may contain low levels of certain pesticides, but these are far below established tolerance levels. Using organic feed may support sustainable farming practices, yet research has not found it affects the nutritional value of the cows’ milk.

Access to pasture. The final requirement for organic milk is that cows must have “access to pasture.” Many consumers assume this means cows graze in fields most of the year. However, the current standard does not require a specific length of time in pasture. A cow can graze in pasture only a limited time and still produce milk that is certified organic.

On the question of grain- versus grass-fed cows, some suggest that pasture-fed cows may produce milk that contains more conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), a special type of fat that may protect against cancer and other health problems. But Michael Pariza, professor of food microbiology and toxicology at the University of Wisconsin, and a leading expert on CLA in dairy products, says grass feeding by itself does not assure increased CLA.

He and Bauman both note that cows fed mixed grains with soybeans or other additions can produce milk that has higher CLA levels than milk from grass-fed cows. This may lead you to spend less on milk and more on fruits, vegetables, whole grains, fish and other healthful foods.

(This article was provided by the American Institute for Cancer Research in Washington, D.C. A registered dietician is available to respond to questions about diet, nutrition, and cancer at the free AICR Hotline at 1 (800) 843-8114 during business hours.)

Of course, the Cornucopia Institute has already discounted Ms. Collins’ article. And why not? It means less profits for their sugar daddy Organic Valley. The good news is that even their friends are starting to suspect their motives. We will continue to do our part and keep asking the questions to which the answer is always Milk is Milk.