Should we have a right to know what we eat?

[billooo2]

Having attended the hearings on the dairy labeling issue in Ohio, this is "right" which I assumed that we had. What I found out is that companies like Monsanto.........and some government bureaucrats do not see that as a right of the consumer.

Monsanto had convinced the ODA (Ohio Department of Agriculture) that no label on any dairy product should be allowed to have any reference to that product being produced without the use of r-BST.

I was shocked at some of the testimony....by some supposed "experts," and some of the dairy farmers. Some of the dairy farmers were outraged by the fact that consumers were paying more money for "r-BST free milk!!!!"

At the last hearing, one woman testified that, "no one has grown a 3d eye, an extra arm, or 2 more legs, so it should not be anyone's business whether or not r-BSt is used."

Another person testified that the consumer should not have any rights to know anything at all about what is in their food. or how it is produced.

And the Monsanto reps were smiling and nodding their heads affirmatively while these people were testifying.

I had assumed that we already had this "right." It scares me to see first-hand that not everyone believes that........and how close we came to have that rule implemented here in Ohio!!!

[LandRover]

People should be given the information and allowed to make choices.

[MarkNH]

What Irk's me is that they are trying to block producers from indicating what is and isn't in their product. If a monsanto or similar large company doesn't want things to be labeled that way - then they have the option of not including that information.

Have they come up with a way to independently verify if synthetic r-BST has been used on the cattle the produced the milk in question?

If we have only the unsupported word of the producers then any such labeling is valueless because for all that anyone really knows they may be using it and simply saying they are not.

.....Alan.

[MarkNH]

Do we have a test to validate that food labeled as "certified organic" truly is? Much of the labeling is based on trust.

on the rbH - I suppose it might be testable from a paperwork standpoint by auditing Monsanto or whoever it makes the rbh product

[jen74145]

If it helps, I do see some dairy companies (Braum's comes to mind) that specify on the package that their milk comes from cows not treated with rBST. SO, though they can't say the milk itself is free of it, they apparently can say they don't treat their cows with it.

And yep, Monsanto is pretty evil. Hence the furor over heirloom seeds (you know they have ninety percent of the seed market?) and organic methods of late. Monsanto wants none of us to have ANY freedoms in regards to our own food, and the courts agree with them. Scary stuff.

[triana1326]

THe first time I heard of Monsanto was when they sued Oakhurst Dairies here in Maine because Oakhurst puts the rBST - free label on their milk jugs. Garrilick Farms does as well, but they are a smaller company. After years of litigation, Oakhurst must have won, as they still have the rBST - free label. I willingly pay $4.35/gall for their milk. I don't want chemicals and other hormone-mimicking carp in my food. I will always buy something labelled non-GMO or hormone free, even if it's more expensive than the regular stuff. It's not natural, so it's not real food, therefore I don't want to eat it.

[jenofthewoods]

monsanto and others also didnt want there to be anything that says if its "CLONED" or not. Pretty soon we will be eating cloned meat.
I personally would like to know and be given the choice.

[giddy]

I was reading about this yesterday. The article said that if you eat meat you are already eating gmo food because the animals have been eating it for some time. I also read where Monsanto is fighting this "free of rBST" thing. The ones who have won also has to have on the back of the carton that it (rBST)hasn't been proven to be harmful to animals or humans. Read Seeds of Destruction by F. William Engdahl. There is an article in www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/3180/81. Monsanto has a lot of power and is using it. Makes you wonder what ever happened to consumer's rights.

[MaineFarmMom]

Originally Posted by triana1326

THe first time I heard of Monsanto was when they sued Oakhurst Dairies here in Maine because Oakhurst puts the rBST - free label on their milk jugs. Garrilick Farms does as well, but they are a smaller company. After years of litigation, Oakhurst must have won, as they still have the rBST - free label. I willingly pay $4.35/gall for their milk. I don't want chemicals and other hormone-mimicking carp in my food. I will always buy something labelled non-GMO or hormone free, even if it's more expensive than the regular stuff. It's not natural, so it's not real food, therefore I don't want to eat it.

Oakhurst lost. They had to change their label. They don't have the kind of money the big bully has to fight it out in court. They've added: "FDA states: No significant difference in milk from cows treated with artificial growth hormone."

I don't give a rats backside what the FDA states. They've stated a lot of misinformation and had to back track because they've put people in harm's way. I want to know more than just what's in the milk we drink. I want to know the cows weren't shot up with an artificial drug, what they ate and how they were treated. I want to know the milk I'm buying for my family is real - unpasteurized and homogenized. Yes, I know the risks and I agree - not drinking real milk is a risk I don't want to take.

Triana, have you tried White Orchard Farm's milk? It's organic and raw. My husband has been to the farm and was impressed.

[dosthouhavemilk]

Originally Posted by A.T. Hagan

Have they come up with a way to independently verify if synthetic r-BST has been used on the cattle the produced the milk in question?

If we have only the unsupported word of the producers then any such labeling is valueless because for all that anyone really knows they may be using it and simply saying they are not.

.....Alan.

Last I knew there was no way to tell, since the synthetic hormone acts the same as the naturally occuring BST found in all lactating cattle. Saved a number of cows in our herd. You'd be amazed at the weight some of those girls put on when we used Posilac on them. It makes them eat and eat and eat some more...lol
I know that DFA has been pushed by their buyers to go the no Posilac route. We used Posilac in our small herd (milking 9 right now, but usually milk around 20 head) for the past ten years and quit in January because we would have had to have our small amount of milk hauled by another truck and sent to a local cheese plant...at least until they caved to the pressure. So we quit using Posilac. We would have had more income had we continued the Posilac, but not for long with the way things are going, so we decided to make everyone's life easier and just quit the shots.
The DFA here in the NE is not the first group to push no Posilac for their buyers. At this point most of the country is producing milk from cows not supplemented with Posilac...at least those selling to DFA.
Dad told our local rep that next they would go after amount of pastureland and other hormones (Oxytocin, Lute, etc-some used to actually save cow's lives). Not surprisingly that rep was around recently to conduct a survey. The group is trying to get ahead of what is coming next and he has been looking closer at the farms for the things dad pointed out. We are a "gold star" farm according to the survey. Not surprising in the least. We aren't your typical evil Posilac factory farm.

The farmers sign affidavits stating they will not/do not use Posilac. Beyond that, if a farmer choses to be dishonest there is no way to verify it.
Here's hoping we might actually see some of the promised income from this move. It is doubtful though. If they take it out of the hands of everyone we'll be back on the smae page but needing more cows to produce the same amount of milk..or...they will simply knock out another bunch of small farmers. Four local dairy farms went down while we stayed afloat this last time.......A couple more look like they won't last much longer either....


Gee, I wonder how folks will look at me after this post....
Admitting to have used Posilac...I'm the devil, I am. It would probably just curl toes if I pointed out we actually stopped using Antibiotics after we started the Posilac....lol Were able to keep 2 quartered cows around instead of having to beef them......Put weight back on a cow that had been ill...etc, etc....

Ah well.....


Those poor abused cows...lol


Back to OP....I am all for consumers having the right to know what is in what they eat.
However, I'm sure you've picked up that I've been bashed more than once for our use of Posilac and especially when I happen to point out our personal experiences with it which does not always jive with the information put forth by those against it. I just wish consumers actually did more research into what they eat and not make assumptions based on labeling....

[Callieslamb]

to know what I eat. I 'vote' for what I eat by what I buy. If it MIGHT contain something I don't want in there, I don't have to buy it. If enough people don't buy it....I bet it wouldn't be in there for long! Or the seller would come up with a way to prove that it wasn't there.

[billooo2]

There is not a test that is easily used. Some "research person" came up to me talk to me after one of the hearings. He said that Posilac can be distinguished from natural BST because it has a different chain of amino acids......and it will react differently. He went on to explain why it is difficult to detect, but he was speaking in very technical terms, and I did not understand a lot of what he said.

I called the Ohio Dept of Ag today to ask for a list of processors in the state. I was going to do a quick telephone survey to see who was planning to switch to r-bst-free milk. The person that I talked with said he thinks every processor in the state has submitted a label indicating that their product is r-BST-free.

Dostthouhavemilk,
I am glad that you had good luck with Posilac. However the package insert that comes with the drug says that cows that are given this drug have an increased incidence of lameness, mastitis, and an overall increase in the use of antibiotics.

I don't care if a farmer wants to use Posilac.......and I have never said that anyone should not drink milk from those cows . I just believe that the consumer should be provided with the information, and each person should be able to make a choice for themselves.

The thing that makes me nervous about Posilac is the fact that it is Monsanto who is making it. The same company that brought us products like Agent Orange, dioxin, and PCB's.....all the while telling us how safe they were.....

[anniew]

It seems that we have found that adding extra hormones to women has proven to have a negative effect, so I think extra hormones (BST) in cow's milk might also be harmful...like causing faster maturation in young girls???
Anyway, if we (at least some of us) don't want extra human female hormones because it may lead to increased breast cancer or whatever, why would we want to ingest extra cow hormones?

[haypoint]

Seems like most folks want more labeling, more knowledge of what they are drinking or eating, where it came from and what is in it. Yet, many of the same folks howl to high heaven when the USDA suggests a program of traceback thru an ear tag system for cows. Either this is a double standard or some folks just don't like anything the "Big Guys" do.

[dosthouhavemilk]

Bill,
The label would need to say that to cover them. With higher production comes the increase in those risks.
Posilac is given after a cow has peaked and started her downward curve in production. Posilac increases the BST in the cow's system and increases her feed intake. This increases her production.
Every cow has their own varying level of BST in their system at all times. There is BST in milk but our bodies simply digest it and it does not have an effect on our system since it is a bovine specific hormone.
Each cow is different. Hoolie, who produced 80 pounds a day without a sweat (and had a very nice udder and great body), while a cow like Nessie puts about 50 pounds of milk in a bucket a day. They have different levels of naturally occuring BST in their bodies. Part of the genetic make up and the like.
Our cows could maintain decent production with the Posilac. They never milked more than their natural peaks with it. We actually came close to seeing the 10 pounds a day where most farmers are/were lucky to see 5 pounds. Atilla maintained 40 pounds a day out of only half her udder. We were able to keep cows like she and Chelsea around since they covered their feed. We also could keep cows with longer dry spells or lower producers because the higher producers could pull their own weight and then some.
With that extra 5-10 pounds a day means a slightly larger udder than they might normally have. Anytime you have a cow producing well there is an increase in the chance of mastitis simply due to the extra milk she's carrying around. With an increased chance of mastitis, comes an increased chance of anitbiotic usage to treat the mastitis. Those two simply go hand in hand on most farms. We haven't used antibiotics to treat a mastitis case in a few years now. (Though I picked some up for Dad to treat Carina last week, but I believe she dried herself up before he had the chance...lol) At one point a couple years ago the field rep wanted to check our "medicine cabinet." There were no antibiotics there. We have some now because we treated wounds on a goat with it and some pink eye cases. As well as the stuff picked up for Carina.

As far as lameness, not sure on that one. lol

The risk of mastitis and antibiotic use makes sense though with any increase in production.

An interesting note, apple plummy (what's left over after apple cider is made) and citrus pulps can trigger the exact same increase in BST in cattle. This herd used apple plummy regularly in the Fall to give a kick to milk production. Lots of natural ways to increase production.
Dad wouldn't have done anything to harm the girls. He researched it at length when it came out and he was still looking for the scientific research that proved all the hype. Since we didn't really see much of a change in the herd.

The concern with Posilac, as I understand it, is that it may increase the levels of IFG-1 (is this what it is called), which is turn can cause cancer...
I've done quite a bit of research on Posilac. When you are being called horrible names, you learn to have some facts around. And frankly, I have not really stated anywhere online my personal opnion on whether Posilac is good or bad... I simply attempt to educate when I can.

I had not realized there was a test that is actually reliable. Certainly not a test that is easily used from the sounds of it.

I assume you'll post the phone survey results?
I know a lot of processors have gone no Posilac since the beginning of the year...

[palani]

With corporations (for profit) in charge of food production you might do well to question what is in your diet.

Back in the '70s we received Successful Farming magazine. A series of articles were published to let farmers know how to maximize profits when raising beef

(1) squirt anhydrous amonia into the silage to increase protein levels 1-2% inexpensively.
(2) sprinkle portland cement on the silage to help buffer the stomach acid in the bovines.
(3) a lowcost source of protein (albeit unpalatable I am told) is chicken droppings which are blended into the silage.

There is a local producer who killed three bulls before realizing they don't survive well on a diet of gummybears. When anyone is placed into a position to maximize profits you can't blame them when they take shortcuts. That doesn't mean you have to buy from them though.

[uyk7]

like causing faster maturation in young girls???

According to CNN last week, some believe this is happening because girls today are hitting puberty early. They think that the r-BST might be a potential cause.

Seems like most folks want more labeling, more knowledge of what they are drinking or eating, where it came from and what is in it. Yet, many of the same folks howl to high heaven when the USDA suggests a program of traceback thru an ear tag system for cows. Either this is a double standard or some folks just don't like anything the "Big Guys" do.

I would like to know where my food came from because I try to avoid anything coming from China (and maybe a few other countries). I want to know if anything has been added to my food so that I can chose to buy it or not. I want to also know if my food contains GMO as I prefer organic. I don't want NAIS because, if I want to have a few farm animals for personnal use, it isn't the gov's business. If I were to start a business of selling farm animals then that would be different. It isn't the gov's business if I have a few chickens. The "Big Guys" have money and can afford this program and, has been shown in the past, can buy exemptions, etc... that small farmers can't. Bottom line is no, I don't trust the "Big Guys".

[paintlady]

We need to be able to choose what we want to consume and have our families consume- plain and simple.
Foods should be labeled including those containing r-BST, country of origin and foods that have been irradiated. It should be OUR choice- not the big bad boys like Monsanto.
We also need some better controls on organic foods that come from outside the US.

[texican]

Yes, we have a right to know what we eat.

If I plant something, I know it's safe... having known what's been put on the plants for nourishment.

If I forage, I have guidebooks that'll tell me if it's a safe plant to eat.

If I kill something, I know exactly how fresh and clean the meat is.

When I milk in the morning, if the goat steps in the bucket, the dogs get a treat... it has to be clean and wholesome for me to drink it.

When I bring plant or animal matter into the house, I determine whether it's fit to eat. If not, it goes to the dogs or chickens.

Sometimes, I feel like playing Russian Roulette... I go to the grocery store and pick up stuff and hope I wake up the next morning...