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.

Milk is Milk Blog by Alex Avery

Apparently we have some of the fear profiteers and panic mongers worried. Anti-(insert cause du jour, in this case “safe, affordable milk”) activists Samuel Epstein and Ronnie Cummins don’t care for the content of our Milk is Milk Blog. They have gone so far as to issue a scathing press release claiming our information is a danger to public health. Both Epstein and Cummins rely on the fact that their outrageous claims and food safety attacks are rarely challenged and that their conflicts of interest are largely left un-exposed. Like the life-sucking vampires they are, exposure to sunlight makes them shrivel and die; ergo, anyone who risks disagreeing with them must be unscrupulously and viciously attacked. So be it. We can stand the heat and are happy to get the exposure. We like sunlight. What about Epstein and Cummins?

Samuel Epstein also claims everything from Ritalin to dog flea collars, and of course anything non-organic, causes cancer. The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR.org) has ranked Epstein as “the least credible scientist on issues of environmental cancer” joining with groups like the American Cancer Society, U.S. Food & Drug Administration and the American Medical Association in debunking Epstein’s false and misleading claims. If you were to follow the discredited advice of Doc Sammy Epstein to avoid cancer you should never use or consume hot dogs, non-organic shampoo, flea collars, talcum powder, soap, cosmetics, irradiated food, any non-organic fruit or vegetable, red meat, birth control pills or breast-cancer-detecting mammograms. Oh, and Sam also believes that IBM (yes, that’s International Business Machines) was the “puppet master” for the Holocaust, apparently pulling Hitler’s strings to facilitate the genocide of the Jewish people. Allrighty then. Clearly, following this guy’s advice will start to make Howard Hughes’ phobias and paranoia look like common sense.

Simply put, Samuel Epstein is a dangerous nut job who profits from promoting fears to anyone willing and gullible enough to listen. Putting the Milk is Milk Blog in the same category of “dangerous to the public health” as he places life-saving mammograms, well I can live with that. Reviewing the publicly available tax returns for Epstein’s organization the Cancer Prevention Coalition, his priorities come into clear view. In 2002 Epstein reports spending a whopping total of $425 on research while spending a corresponding $6,337 issuing “press releases.” In fact, Epstein spent 20 times more on “tolls and parking” in 2002 than he did on research and of course all that pales in comparison with his “travel expenses” to help spread the word.

Sunshine and facts are what people should look for when the likes of Epstein make claims that milk or animal productivity supplements somehow cause cancer. His press releases are replete with claims that evil IGF-1 levels in milk are a deadly link to cancer, while he and his animal-rights buddies suggest alternatives such as soy juice to avoid this risk. What you don’t see is any actual research validating his claims, or references to the fact that the American Cancer Society, American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, World Health Organization, etc… (We can go on and on here) say his claims are false. You certainly won’t see the peer-reviewed research published in the Journal Cancer Epidemiology which stated: “Increasing dairy milk intake was not significantly associated with increasing serum IGF-1 concentration in meat-eaters or vegetarians or among both groups combined. However, vegan women who consumed 3/4 pint or more of soya milk/day had a significant 28% higher IGF-1 concentration than vegan women who did not drink soya milk.” And why do you not see these facts? Because Epstein and Cummins get their money from people with vested commercial interests in generating these fears in order to sell alternative products - like soy milk.

The Horst Rechelbacher Foundation is the largest single donor to Epstein’s coalition. Horst M. Rechelbacher, who founded the natural products company Aveda in 1978, is an extreme environmentalist who makes his fortune from Intelligent Nutrients, a biodynamic and organic food and nutraceutical corporation. Biodynamic is a form of extreme organic agriculture, and of course, these high-priced products are bought by people who believe that non-organic products cause cancer and other ills. Rechelbacher, in addition to providing most of Epstein’s budget also pays Epstein for his services as a “medical advisor” to Mr. Rechelbacher’s company - Epstein also conveniently sits on the medical advisory board for the company. In addition to the $212,500 funneled into Epstein’s coffers which are used to spread fear about his competitors’ non-organic products, Mr. Rechelbacher also has given tens of thousands of dollars to other food fear mongers like Greenpeace and to Ronnie Cummin’s Organic Consumers Association. Lest we forget, Mr. Cummins was the co-author of the press release calling our Blog a threat to public health. (By the way, the Rechelbacher Foundation tax returns are filed care of a Dennis Ritchie - apparently related to Neil Ritchie and Mark Ritchie who run the Institute for Agriculture Trade Policy, another group of fear mongers attacking the safety of non-organic food. The Ritchies also run a for-profit organic coffee company which benefits from these food scares.)

Question: at what point will someone - perhaps the IRS - start to scrutinize these “organic” and “natural” product millionaires taking charitable tax deductions for what would be marketing expenses for anyone else. Of course, if it were exposed that they were marketing their products by falsely claiming their competitors’ products caused cancer, there could be some legal problems as well. Hmm, and these are the folks held up as “socially responsible” companies?

As for Ronnie Cummins, well, let’s tackle him later in the week. His antics are worthy of a dedicated column unto himself. Milk is Milk, and don’t let the likes of Samuel Epstein or Ronnie Cummins tell you otherwise.

Milk is Milk Blog by Alex Avery

Consumer demand is frequently cited by grocers and food companies who seek to force restrictions on how their supplying dairy farmers run their operations. The most frequent restrictions are on the use of safe, tested animal health or productivity products like antibiotics used to treat mastitis or supplemental somatotropin (rbST) to help boost productivity and conserve resources.

However, the evidence suggests that the so-called consumer demand for these changes: 1. Is rarely real; 2. Doesn’t translate into increasing or even maintaining sales; and 3. Ends up harming farm economics by driving competitors to take the same steps while simultaneously damaging consumer confidence in milk and dairy foods.

Limiting the tools farmers have to safely produce more milk using fewer resources and using those restrictions as a marketing scheme creates a downward spiral in the market place, with increased production costs and reduced demand for the product. In the case of rbST, it also hurts the environment. What brain surgeons thought up the scenario that currently plagues the dairy industry? Would it surprise you to learn that it is animal rights activists who want to end all human consumption of animal products - including milk?

Let’s take a look at one example: Starbucks. In 2001 the self-proclaimed Organic Consumers Association (OCA), an organic activist front group, launched a campaign against Starbucks demanding they serve organic-only dairy products in their stores and specifically milk from cows not supplemented with rbST - commonly known as bovine growth hormone. OCA’s leader, Ronnie Cummins admitted that Starbucks was targeted because it was successful, rather than because actual Starbuck’s customers were demanding organic milk. Cummins stated, “We are targeting Starbucks because they are a high-profile market leader and because they promote themselves as socially responsible.” (Now this whole corporate social responsibility and socially responsible investing shakedown issue is another story, but you might want to consider reading a recent expose in the Economist Magazine and other reports found at the watch dog group http://www.csrwatch.com/).

What you need to know about Cummins and his cabal is that they use food scare campaigns and threats to damage organizations’ reputations as a way to achieve their extreme social, economic and political views. One of these views happens to be a strict vegetarian desire to eliminate all forms of animal agriculture. Cummins, you see, got his start working for anti-capitalist activist Jeremy Rifkin, where he helped run campaigns against beef. The Houston Chronicle reported in 1992, “In the America Rifkin envisions, beef cattle and capitalism are banished, the buffalo roam, the deer and the antelope play and Americans eat peas and corn bread in poverty but in solidarity with their Third World brothers.”

Since people actually like and demand animal products, such as dairy foods, the likes of Rifkin and Cummins have to scare people and threaten companies’ reputations in order to get them to implement their social/political agenda. As noted, their campaigns end up hurting family farmers while driving consumers away from safe and healthy foods.

But back to our Starbucks example. When Cummins’ campaign reached Starbucks executives, they jumped at the chance to engage in dialogue with people who they thought were progressive and reasonable. Reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain’s cowardly and ill-informed dealings with Nazi Germany, Starbucks failed to grasp the end-goals and tactics of this extremist group. The result? OCA immediately rejected Starbucks’ overtures to engage in a productive dialogue until the company first met all of the activist’s demands. You might think this would have been the point at which Starbucks simply told Mr. Cummins, “You know, we didn’t have any customer complaints before you guys came along and we’re pretty sure we won’t once you leave and turn your attention to somebody else… so take a hike.”

After seeing the light, Starbucks management (apparently at the direction of their board of directors) took a different route. After learning from responsible consumer and farming groups that there really wasn’t any responsible or economic way to serve only milk from cows not receiving supplemental rbST, they chose to offer the customers a choice. Starbucks would start to carry an organic milk alternative (organic producers don’t use rbST) to customers willing to pay a small premium of 40 cents - which was less than Starbuck’s actual costs. This was the first smart thing Starbucks did in dealing with the OCA extremists - they offered their customers a choice while not forcing the costs of that choice on everybody else. Starbucks’ Web site proclaimed this bold move through press statements and prominent display on their menu boards.

Did Cummins and OCA see this as a victory and move on? Of course not. They were outraged at being outwitted at their own game. They didn’t really want consumer choice; they wanted to impose their choice. Their campaign attacking Starbucks with harassment and fear tactics continues today.

As for Starbucks, a funny thing happened. Today, the organic milk option appears to be gone from most of their stores and there is no longer any mention of it on their Web sites. Ask the barista behind the coffee counter next time you’re at your neighborhood Starbucks why. We did this at numerous stores around the country and found virtually the same response: “We were throwing it all away.” In 2001 Starbucks consumer hotline operators were well armed with talking points about this decision; today they respond that they simply “don’t have any information” about that issue. It appears that very, very few customers actually were demanding this product and just about none were willing to pay for it - even when Starbucks was subsidizing the cost. Today, if you are a vegan or lactose intolerant, Starbucks will offer you an organic soy juice alternative and they eagerly promote this online.

Responsible consumer research experts will tell you that actual consumer demand and accompanying consumer purchasing is often much different than what is suggested by the polls conducted by activists or marketers who stand to profit from promoting a certain result. Activists may try to temporarily flood consumer lines and mailboxes with their complaints-du-jour; however, they rarely represent the views of a significant number of actual consumers. Forcing consumers and farmers to bear the costs and burdens of these activist campaigns is irresponsible on the part of companies - and is unethical, bordering on illegal, when those companies use false or misleading marketing to try and benefit from those restrictions. In the case of Starbucks, I wonder if their shareholders will demand an accounting of the costs they undertook to respond to the activists?

For dairy farmers and their coops who today are being asked to jump through these types of hoops, they should be asking for the real reasons why - and then asking how their interests will be protected in the future as milk production becomes less and less economical, and more consumers are scared away by the accompanying black marketing. Today it might be rbST or antibiotics - but that won’t send the activists away. What will their demands be tomorrow: oxytocin, prostaglanidin, or vaccines that protect cows against disease? Once you’ve started down the path of appeasement and concessions with extremists, it’s even less likely that they will quietly go away–just ask Neville Chamberlain or Starbucks. Milk is milk, and don’t let anybody scare you into thinking otherwise.

Milk is Milk Blog by Alex Avery

Modern agricultural methods of production, like biotechnology and animal health products, are under attack. Recently, the New York Times printed an article that would seem to take the wind out of the anti-biotech movement. “Facing Biotech Foods without the Fear Factor” by Jane Brody, personal health columnist for the NY Times and a hundred other newspapers, takes an in depth look at the history and current reality of genetic modification, or introducing genes into plants. Her conclusion? GMOs “could raise the standard of living worldwide and better protect the planet from chemical contamination.” That is what technology allows. Getting more from less; giving farmers and ranchers a choice to be more efficient while using fewer resources. But the attacks continue. Why?

Simply follow the money. The issue of food produced with the aid of modern biotechnology has gained increased attention among activist and special interest groups in the United States because it helps line these special interest pockets. Traditional eco-activist and “organic” advocacy groups are emerging as virtual marketing partners with the multi-billion-dollar organic and natural products industry, challenging biotechnology and conventional food product safety. These groups are determined to instill fear in the public about the safety of the food we eat. Funded by a growing industry which benefits from this black marketing, these advocacy groups are generating fear campaigns targeting children and parents. According to a recent article by Oregonians for Food and Shelter, in the long-run, these attacks will hurt all agriculture, organic included.

Milk is no exception. Activists have been spreading rumors that “biotech” milk from cloned cows is headed to a grocery store near you any day now if you don’t act immediately to stop it. Well, they’ve made this warning for more than three years now, and their dire predictions aren’t even close to coming true. From this column, you know that others are baselessly attacking milk producers’ use of supplemental somatotropin (bovine growth hormone) with false claims that the milk is somehow genetically modified or different. It is not, and as made clear by the New York Times, these attacks on biotechnology are simply bogus. And their tactic of targeting children is, well frankly, obscene.

The GE Food Alert coalition, for example, announced a Halloween “scare campaign” a few years back. They have established yet another Web site: www.StopFrankenfood.org to facilitate the sending of email form letters to the FDA as part of its on-line consumer campaign against agricultural biotechnology. Targeting children, their key message is, “Trick… or trick? This Halloween, some of the spookiest stuff out there won’t be found in cemeteries or haunted houses. No, this Halloween, we should all be looking for the freaky foods on our grocery store shelves.”

Lest we forget, these same “public interest” activist groups have a long and well-documented history of similar fear campaigns, all of which have proven to be misleading or outright false. The costs of these campaigns to consumers and producers have been significant. Examples include, the now debunked Alar scare costing apple growers some $150 million and the false silicone breast implant scare which bankrupted Dow Corning. The purpose of such scares, according to a memo by the public relations firm hired to promote them was to increase fundraising for their non-profit activist group clients. This is the same public relations firm hired to promote today’s anti-biotechnology scares.

Indeed, the very reason some products are misleadingly labeled as such is to take advantage of the consumer fears that these campaigns claim to represent. The result is exactly - and deliberately - the opposite of what the campaigners claim to be for: consumer choice. How could this be so?

Consider the choices, or lack thereof, for consumers in the U.K. There are only two types of food choices there, organic and non-biotech conventional. Even if they want the choice of biotech foods that have improved nutritional qualities or are produced with fewer pesticides, they cannot. The reason for the lack of choice is fear-based labeling and activist pressure schemes. These campaigns led to public pressure for food labeling laws declaring whether a food was derived from a biotech-improved crop. UK supermarkets subsequently pulled biotech products from the shelves, lest they lose even a tiny percentage of their customers to the fear campaigns.

News reports suggest UK consumers are now less-informed about their food choices and paying more to boot.

The UK’s food labeling regime, designed to give consumers “choice,” actually degrades the underlying consumer protection principles of their former safety- and content-based system. These consumer protection principles, on which the United States’ current system is based, were established by President Abraham Lincoln in 1861 to stop false and misleading marketing by unscrupulous snake-oil salesmen. Today, modern-day snake-oil salesmen marketing “GMO-free,” “all-natural,” and “organic” products have been cited by both U.S. and U.K. regulators for false and misleading marketing, making unfounded claims about the risks of biotechnology-produced foods, and making false claims about the benefits of foods sold as “GMO-free” or “organic.” The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority has gone so far as to bar organic marketers from making any claims of increased safety, nutrition, or taste.

According to the Wall Street Journal Europe, the institution of GMO labeling in Europe has left consumers more confused with fewer choices.

Farmers are similarly denied choice when they are restricted from using safe technologies in the cultivation of a crop or the production of milk. Once a technology is tested, reviewed and approved by the competent regulatory agency, farmers deserve the choice as to whether they want to use it. When that choice is restricted, farmers are put at a disadvantage - a disadvantage that will only increase as additional restrictions are placed on how they farm.

The choices of food manufacturers and retailers are also restricted by these campaigns and demands. Generally, these businesses make decisions on hard data. Actual data about volume, margins, carrying costs and shelf life are factored into the choices retailers make about the products they sell. If consumers do not want a certain product and, consequently do not buy it, all of the information necessary for a retailer or a manufacturer to make a choice about that product is quantifiable. If manufacturers or retailers start basing their choices on the perceived preferences of the consumer rather than the quantified data, the grocery stores’ shelves would look quite different than they do today.

On October 10, 2002 an Associated Press story from Bozeman, Montana, “Hormone-free milk not setting sales records, Darigold says,” stated “The regional cooperative reported that half-gallon cartons of their milk, which now are all labeled as coming from cows that were not supplemented with recombinant bovine somatotropin, are not selling quite as well as the half-gallons did before the label was added. Darigold began adding the label more than a year ago to satisfy customer demand, said Keith Nye, Darigold’s CEO.” It may be that the true customer demand was not as it was portrayed to be. Consumer research supports this finding - these misleading “absence” claims are not what consumers are looking for to inform their dairy purchasing. These claims create confusion and can upset consumers greatly when they found they’ve been misled. The research shows these labels also harm dairy farmers.

Additionally, the “hormone-free” claim, whether on labels, Web sites or other marketing materials, is simply false and also puts the producer, bottler and retailer selling the product at risk of regulatory wrath from the Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug Administration and state authorities. Not only are these people at risk, according to the FTC their advertising and public relations agencies, Web designers and others involved in promoting these false claims can also be prosecuted.

The greatest concern, however, is what will happen to agriculture and food production when all choices are dictated by those whose ethical or political motivations are the driving factor and who are not involved with the cultivation of an agricultural commodity or the manufacture or sale of a food product. If a form-letter campaign can cause the USDA to prohibit production methods or move a food retailer to exclude all milk produced with the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin, what would it take to have all non-free range chicken products removed from the store shelves?

Absurd? Not really. The question is: Where do we draw the line? There are issues throughout our world where reasonable people do differ on the acceptability and desirability of specific technologies. The use of air conditioning refrigerants and their potential impacts on the ozone layer have long been the subjects of consumer and scientific concern. These concerns are real. The negatives could never be proven prospectively. But consumers of these technologies have made a choice to use them with appropriate safeguards and, more importantly, had the opportunity to make that choice. Consider whether the removal of all potentially ozone depleting materials based on a letter and telephone campaign would be a viable option for a grocery store as it exists today.

Bottom line, everyone should have the choice to operate their lives and their businesses as they wish within the laws of their country. Total discrimination against products of modern biotechnology based solely on a vocal so-called public interest group with a dubious and self-serving agenda will deny farmers, food manufacturers, food retailers and consumers the opportunity to make a choice about biotechnology. Retailers are also at risk when they carry or promote these products and claims, as regulators and litigators have demonstrated their willingness to punish those engaged in these practices.

Be cautious about giving away this freedom of choice - it is a hard freedom to regain once gone. And remember, milk is milk.

Mailbag: Complaints and Double Standards Apparently somebody is listening

Milk is Milk Blog by Alex Avery

Apparently people are listening and taking notice. Since launching this Blog just two short weeks ago we’ve had thousands of visitors from across the globe check out my musings. Here at CGFI we’re already hearing a range of reviews - mostly supportive - from dairy farmers, animal scientists and concerned consumers. Journalists and dairy trade reporters appear to be taking notice as well. FoodNavigatorUSA.com reported on our stories exposing false and misleading marketing by Horizon, Organic Valley and Stonyfield Yogurt.

Another “journalist” contacted us regarding our inaugural Blog on Steve Wilson and Jane Akre - but apparently he wasn’t interested in writing about this. Well, to be honest, that “journalist” was an angry Steve Wilson - but when he called he didn’t want to say who he was. Hmm, an interesting approach for a journalist who demands transparency while criticizing the integrity of his “investigative” reporting targets - he wanted to remain “anonymous.” Can you say double standards? I’m beginning to see why Akre & Wilson’s former boss WTVT news director Phil Metlin labeled them “two desperate journalists who hide behind their shield of ethics in journalism…”

Steve was one angry pup and demanded to know if some nefarious source was behind our Milk is Milk education campaign - the answer is no. He also wanted to defend his claims that milk was dangerous. Unfortunately, he had to admit the milk was “the same” and then he declined to answer any questions about who was funding his campaign attacking the safety of milk - you know that somebody has to be paying for Steve and Jane to travel across the globe to attend the activist trainings and rallies at which they are headlined and applauded. But he wasn’t talking.

Steve said he’d get back to me with the evidence supporting his attacks on the safety of milk - claims which the American Medical Association, World Health Organization and just about everybody else that matters discredit. I still haven’t heard back from Steve and I’m guessing I won’t hear anything too soon. To see the details of my conversation with Steve Wilson, click here.

As for Horizon, Stonyfield and Organic Valley - we’ve been writing these guys and sending letters to regulators about their marketing practices for a couple of years now without a peep back from them in response. However, they did respond to inquiries from news reporter Phillipa Nuttall who read our Blog. Horizon and Organic Valley, it appears, aren’t happy about what we’re disclosing regarding their black marketing practices and are a little defensive. Methinks they doth protest too much, and actually their protests reveal some serious problems they have with broadly acknowledged scientific facts, as well as well-published rules and regulations regarding what constitute false and misleading marketing.

Ms. Nuttall reported that Theresa Marquez, the chief marketing executive for Organic Valley actually said: “We are not talking about natural hormones, but hormones that are added to the milk. We produce our milk without hormones.” It is beyond rational perception how someone vested with the responsibility for marketing dairy products for a company with annual sales in excess of $150 million: 1. lacks even a basic understanding of dairy animal science; 2. fails to understand the production practices of her own company and suppliers; and 3. ignores U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidelines for marketing claims about dairy products and hormones. Folks, these are very basic things which should be in the job requirements for someone in this position. Heck, false and misleading marketing, advertising and labeling of food products can cost a company millions of dollars in court damages and fines, and even put you out business.

But let’s get back to Ms. Marquez’s statements, couching her defense by adding, “we’ll continue to tell our story in the most ethical way possible.” Theresa, the most ethical way would be to tell the truth. First, the only hormone that is “added to milk” is Vitamin D3 - a hormone which Organic Valley does add to their milk. Second, farmers who supplement their cows aren’t adding anything to the milk - they are giving their cow a supplement, which helps the cow produce more of the exact same milk. Third, all dairy cows require these naturally occurring hormones - there are over 25 hormones naturally found in dairy products - to produce milk. It’s part of their natural chemistry.

Supplemental bST is not “artificial” - it is the same naturally occurring hormone found in cows. Supplements simply help the cows maintain normal peak levels which occur at the beginning of a milking cycle over a slightly longer period of time. So the cows receiving this supplement produce more milk. More milk from fewer cows is good for the environment, good for consumers and good for the dairy farmer’s pocketbook. But for some reason - perhaps because consumers would stop paying $2 to $3 more per gallon for “organic” milk if they weren’t being scared away from the less expensive conventional brands - the likes of Ms. Marquez and Organic Valley appear ready to fight to keep making these false statements about hormones, antibiotics and pesticides.

Ms. Marquez continues to ignore the admitted practice of Organic Valley farmers (as do Horizon and Stonyfield) to use artificial insemination (which includes antibiotics), to use reproductive health hormones like oxytocin, and the use of organic pesticides - which are toxic. Defenders of these organic dairy companies claim the antibiotic residues are minor and that not all organic producers use reproductive hormones - but you cannot have it both ways. If you use antibiotics, hormones and toxic pesticides you simply shouldn’t be able to make marketing claims and label your products as antibiotic-free, hormone-free and pesticide-free.

Horizon’s comments were not quite as poorly worded as Ms. Marquez’ - at least they admitted that all cows’ milk contains hormones. I wonder if that means they’ll change their labels and advertising to remove the “no hormones” claim now? Don’t hold your breath. But, according to the news report Horizon “said that it is committed to providing consumers with certified organic foods produced without the use of antibiotics, added hormones or dangerous pesticides and that it labels its products with this information so all consumers can make educated choices about the food they buy.” Like Organic Valley, Horizon simply isn’t telling the truth and they don’t seem to care. Horizon does use pesticides (organic ones, but they are dangerous and toxic – just read their labels), Horizon does use hormones - Vitamin D3 and the reproductive health hormones allowed by organic standards, and Horizon milk suppliers do use antibiotic-embedded artificial insemination products.

The bottom line here is that Organic Valley, Horizon, Stonyfield, et al… just don’t seem to realize the harm they are doing to the dairy industry. Their black marketing, and unabashed defense of these false and misleading claims, simply turns people away from milk and dairy products. One European industry analyst commented in the publication Dairy Farmer that “promoting organic produce by denigrating conventional is despicable, self-defeating and profoundly damaging” adding that “Promotion of all product must concentrate on the positives and let consumers know that they are the winners through having a wider choice.”

That’s sound advice. Are you listening Ms. Marquez? Milk is milk.

Milk is Milk Blog by Alex Avery:What’s the deal with soy milk and some of the people promoting it? First of all, it’s not milk - but soy juice sounds kinda yucky, so don’t expect to see it labeled as such anytime soon. Does this stuff really belong in the supermarket dairy case or part of your kids’ school lunch as a replacement to wholesome, real milk?

MSN’s Slate Magazine conducted a taste test of the various soy “milks” available on the market and even the best-known product was characterized by taste-testers as “I would feed this to a cat I didn’t like” and “actually makes the cookie taste worse.” Their conclusions, “Non-milk products didn’t taste like milk, and they didn’t taste good. Soy milk looks like eggnog and unfortunately tastes like what it is - soy juice.” Hmmm, that’s going to go well along side of the Sloppy Joes at the local elementary school cafeteria.OK, so it doesn’t look, taste or feel like milk. By definition (a white nutritious liquid secreted by mammals) it’s a stretch to call it milk - versus “milk-like.” Resolved: We have a plastic-tasting, milk-like juice made from a vegetable known for it’s oil and forage qualities — not milk.This brings me to the point of my Blog today, one of the biggest promoters of soy juice is the “Not Milk” man - a.k.a. Robert Cohen. Cohen is prolific in his rants attacking milk and dairy products. He’s a darling of the radical animal rights movement (which

opposes dairy products because of the subjugation of cows which they claim is immoral because it exploits animals) and various other alternative health nuts who help to amplify Cohen’s various claims - which range from falsely linking milk to cancer to asserting that milk is bad for your bones.The Not Milk Man (I’ll dub him Soy Boy), his buddies at PETA and their front group Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine are lobbying to replace cows milk with soy products in school lunch programs. Soy Boy goes as far as to claim that inner-city violence is due to the serving of free milk to poor kids at public schools. What’s with all these nut jobs and fear profiteers? Cohen even attacks “commercially prepared” soy milk as being “as dangerous as cows milk!” Only Soy Boy’s natural, fresh soy milk production method apparently is good enough… as he claims other soy milk has added “acids” which are the same chemicals used to de-ice airplanes and which “can strip the skin off your hands…” Yum! As a result, the commercial soy juice industry has enlisted the support of some of the vegetarian activist groups they help fund to call Cohen a “fraud” and a “charlatan.” Watch out when the vegetarian activists get you in their sights (something I’m a little familiar with), because they can be mean and vicious with those who cross or disagree with them.They claim Soy Boy Cohen “has a propensity for fabricating scientific data which has time and again been shown to be not only worthless, but potentially dangerous. His character and background make him highly unsuited to be an advocate for a dairy-free or vegetarian lifestyle — or anything else, for that matter.” Geez, how bad must you be to be called dangerous and unsuitable by groups

which support terrorism to promote their extremist views? Here are few of the links they provide claiming Cohen is even too nuts for them:Robert Cohen and Integrity by Steven Kaufman MD Honest Advocacy by Syd Baumel Dangerous Disinformation by Stephen Walsh PhD Spinning Out of Control: Vegans Say No to Extreme “notmilk” Spin by Syd Baumel The Sad Truth About Robert Cohen (definitive & exhaustive article) Using Fake College Degrees to Sell Books by Jeff Nelson Bashing White Wave & Selling Soymilk Makers Using Animal Studies Cohen Defends His White Wave Attack Of course, other more rational outside observers consider this battle between Soy Boy and extremist vegetarian opponents a “battle of wits between disarmed opponents.“Don’t get me wrong, I don’t oppose soy or any use of it - it’s a great source of protein and grown by thousands of outstanding family farmers. However, these farmers aren’t out there irresponsibly bashing milk like Soy Boy is doing to sell his soy juice extractor, or the extremists who want us to abandon all forms of animal agriculture and give cows the right to sue people.

Milk and other dairy products from cows are an important part of a responsible, healthy and nutritious diet - especially for growing children. Don’t let people like Cohen scare you or your kids away from good-tasting, good-for-you milk. And, please don’t let him or anyone else take nutritious, affordable milk out of our school lunch programs. Remember, milk is milk, soy is not.

�

Big money organic dairies are creating and profiting from fear

Milk is Milk Blog by Alex Avery

It has been bothering me for quite some time now, but it wasn’t until I received some mail from an organic dairy recently that I decided to say anything about it. Every time I visit my local grocery dairy case and see in-store displays and package labeling for Horizon Organic Milk and Stonyfield Yogurt next to the other dairy products it makes me wince. The labels and marketing materials for these products scream out at me with claims of “No Yucky Stuff!” and “No toxic chemicals,’ clearly implying that the less expensive milk and yogurt stacked next to them is yucky and toxic. Most of the time I just think nobody in his right mind is going to believe this malarkey and pay 100% or more of a premium on top of it, so I just keep moving.

However, while preparing for a new baby, my wife and I started to receive copies of new parent and baby magazines and referrals by friends to various Web sites to help guide us on such important issues as nutrition and health for children. And there they were again, alongside the ads for diapers and ointments. Scary admonitions from these same two companies suggesting that milk and dairy products posed dangers for children. Stonyfield had full-page ads in Parenting Magazine for its “Yobaby” products, reminding us that we all care about our kids’ health, and suggesting that we buy their yogurt because “pediatricians recommend milk, milk that doesn’t come from cows treated with synthetic bovine growth hormone.” As if the warning were not clear enough, the text appeared beneath a cow’s skull proclaiming “Synthetic Bovine Growth Hormone. Your Baby Doesn’t Want It.” Another ad in the same series headlines, “Very few recipes call for antibiotics and toxic persistent pesticides.”

Yet, milk from cows supplemented with bovine growth hormone is the exact same milk - there is no difference. That’s the opinion of the American Medical Association and the Journal of Pediatrics. So what pediatricians are Stonyfield using to make their claim? And nobody adds toxic persistent pesticides to yogurt or other dairy products. It’s also worth repeating that organic farmers have a long list of highly toxic pesticides they are allowed to use; ergo, the pesticide claim is misleading at best if not downright false. As for antibiotics, all milk is tested to ensure it is free from any antibiotics. Just like other organic dairies, even Stonyfield farmers practice artificial insemination, a practice which includes the use of antibiotic-embedded semen straws. So the antibiotic references are equally false.

Horizon’s Web site, in the Question and Answer section, definitively states regarding artificial insemination, “No. Our cows are impregnated naturally by bulls.” However, when one of our researchers spoke with a quality control employee at Straus Family Creamery, Inc. in Northern California, he scoffed at the notion that Horizon could make such a claim given that they buy organic milk from hundreds of farms across the country. Straus, one of the self-proclaimed pioneers and leaders in the organic dairy farming industry, does use artificial insemination to impregnate their cows. Even more ironically, according to the quality control expert interviewed, Straus supplies milk to Horizon!

Horizon’s black marketing, preying on the fears of new parents and children, is no different. Horizon’s labels, advertising and marketing materials frequently proclaim their milk is “without hormones, antibiotics or toxic chemicals.” In one Horizon consumer newsletter focusing on children’s health they go so far as to suggest a cancer link to non-Horizon milk. Horizon uses for proof of this claim a citation to a study conducted by Yale epidemiologist Dr. Herbert Yu. When presented with Horizon’s use of his research in this manner, Dr. Yu replied:

“In our JNCI review published in 2000 (the study cited by Horizon), we did not mention anything about milk and dairy products. It would be improper to cite our paper with this respect”. Herbert Yu, MD, PH.D. Department of Epidemiology and Public HealthYale University School of Medicine.

With more than a quarter of a billion dollars in annual sales, you’d think Horizon would have checked these sources when suggesting to parents that they were putting their children at risk of cancer when drinking their competitors’ milk. In fact, the American Cancer Society and every other respected health authority which has reviewed these claims calls these links to cancer suggested by Horizon completely baseless.

As for Horizon’s “hormone-free” claims - Horizon’s whole cancer scare is linked to their non-use of supplemental bovine growth hormones - they too are not quite true. All, all, all milk naturally contains hormones; cows can’t produce milk without it. And Horizon and their suppliers, like other organic dairies, are allowed to use a range of reproductive hormones not prohibited by organic standards. Prostaglandin, estrogen, oxytocin, gonadotropin and other hormone products are used throughout the dairy industry. These products, such as LUTALYSE, carry “extreme caution” warning labels noting that women of child-bearing age, asthmatics, and persons with bronchial and other respiratory problems should not handle this product as it is readily absorbed through the skin and can cause abortion. Yet dairies claiming to be “hormone-free” can use these hormones and still think that it’s OK to make hormone-free claims?

Both Horizon and Stonyfield are making a range of health and nutrition claims online, in their advertising and throughout the marketing of their products aimed at children. These two companies, and there are many others making similar claims, are huge corporations. Horizon has sales of more than $250 million each year, Stonyfield adds another $140 million, and both are growing. They are growing by promoting false fears to new parents and their children through misleading statements, labels and advertising about hormones, pesticides and antibiotics. Where are the watchdogs and regulators to protect us?

Last year the U.S. Food and Drug Administration sent warning letters to four small dairies for making hormone-free claims. Neither Horizon nor Stonyfield got one of these letters. How did the FDA miss the two biggest players in the industry with more “hormone-free” and related claims than anyone else? You cannot walk into a dairy case in any major supermarket today and not see one of these brands with their hormone claims. Even without a vigilant FDA, you’d think Horizon and Stonyfield would have gotten the message and cleaned up their act before they too were held accountable for these marketing abuses.

Well, what are we to do if the regulators aren’t doing their jobs and the fear profiteers aren’t stopping? One, don’t buy their products. There are plenty of good, local and affordable dairy products in most stores. Two, call the regulators at FDA and ask them why they’re letting Horizon, Stonyfield and Organic Valley off the hook. Three, complain to your local supermarket for allowing their dairy case to be used in this unethical and possibly illegal manner. Consumers have the power to make informed choices - and they have the power to choose not to buy from those who would profit from their fear.

Milk is milk Blog by Alex Avery:

The unruly, nasty and just-plain-mean people at PETA (that’s People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and not the parody group People Eating Tasty Animals) have lost a lawsuit in California over what makes a cow happy, and who gets to say so. I have to characterize PETA for who they really are, people-haters, first because… because hold your breath… I sorta agree with them on this one.

I only go so far as to agree that marketing milk by claiming your cows are happy is plain B.S. and it has nothing to do with whether or not PETA believes cows to be unfairly subjugated by humans who steal their milk. However, suggesting some cows are happier than others, at least for the reasons we see in some dairy advertising these days, as a way to sell milk for a higher price is bogus.

Milk from happy cows, by rational economic and production standards, should be cheaper. You see “happy cows” are high-producing cows and the more milk produced per cow means more affordable milk for consumers and higher profits for farmers. Oddly, those making claims about happy cows are most often organic marketers, like Horizon which has trademarked the phrase “happy cow.” Yet research shows organic dairy cows produce 40% less milk than conventional cows. If happy cows produce more milk, then how can cows producing nearly half as much be all that happy?

A few years back I heard one organic dairy company claim that “our cows are sooooo happy, they run out to the pasture to graze after being milked.” This was part of a marketing scheme painting a bucolic picture of a solitary cow gamboling about the fields that had to be thought up on Madison Avenue, because no dairy farmer would tell such a fib. In fact, one of my colleagues asked one of the country’s leading dairy animal scientists Dr. Dale Bauman at Cornell about this claim and it made him laugh. As he explained it, the only way to get a dairy cow to race into a pasture to graze would be if it were starving. That doesn’t sound happy to me.

Cows are herd animals and research shows cows are most contented (there are actually people who monitor animal heart rates and other vitals which can show their stress levels in different situations) when they are with other cows, chewing their cuds or eating feed in the shade of a well-ventilated feed barn. Apparently part of a cow’s natural instincts out in an open field away from the protections of a well-designed feeding space and their other cow pals (i.e., the herd) is to fear predators. This results in stress which can negatively impact milk production.

A happy or rather a “contented cow” does produce more milk. How do you make a cow contented? First by milking it (something PETA doesn’t want us to do at all), and milking it often. Three times a day milking is one great way to make a cow happy. Think about it, if you were filled with 50+ pounds of liquid wouldn’t you want relief more than once or twice a day? A healthy, well-fed cow, free from stress and heat is going to make for a contented cow.

There are lots of other ways to make a cow contented, and thus become a long-lived, high-producer. This is what would make me happy if I were a cow. The more productive I was over a nice long life would keep me away from my second career - can you say Big Mac? What the people marketing “happy cows,” like Horizon, won’t tell you, is their “cull rate.” That’s because most research shows little or no difference in the ages of organic or conventional cows culled (put out to that final pasture, so to speak) when they are no longer economically productive milk producers.

Here at the Center for Global Food Issues, we have developed a certification program to help dairy farmers generate higher yields while conserving more land and resources for nature. Unlike organic, free-range, humane-farmed or other similar marketing seals of approval - our Earth-Friendly/Farm Friendly certification program is based solely on science-proven methods that help farmers produce more while using less. And, adopting some of our recommended practices can help keep cows productive longer (read alive and away from the butcher shop) which should make for happier cows overall. We call it high-yield conservation, and it has the support of Nobel Prize winners, environmentalists and leading political figures around the world.

While working with dairies to adopt standards which would help them generate high yields while protecting scarce natural resources - we like to say, “growing more per acre, leaves more room for nature” - I had the pleasure of visiting a dairy farm in Indiana that is an excellent model for those looking for contented cows. Fair Oaks Dairy, which also offers a great tour and learning experience for school children, is a model of efficiency, animal care and productivity. As a result, they have some really happy cows. But you don’t see them trying to compete for business by trashing their competitors with claims that their animals are any happier or that their milk is somehow different. They are just trying to be the best dairy farmers they can be, using the best tools and technology and taking care of their most important resources - their healthy, happy cows. That’s what most dairy farmers care about, doing a good job and treating their cows well.

While the California “Happy Cow” campaign is relatively harmless, there are some who seek to use animal-welfare and related claims to sell higher-priced milk. Others, like PETA, want to stop animal agriculture all together. Misleading advertising, labels and marketing campaigns suggesting the milk comes from happier cows may make you feel better about paying high prices, but your purchase is probably harming a decent, hard-working, honest dairy producer somewhere with happy cows who doesn’t go around smearing his competitors. Ethical and responsible marketing of dairy products means not misleading consumers about the realities of farming and animal science. Milk is milk.