Do hormone labels on milk inform or mislead?

By MARC KOVAC

SPECIAL TO THE VINDICATOR

COLUMBUS — There’s a controversy (dare I say it) frothing over milk , or, more specifically, over dairy product labels.

At issue is whether processors should be allowed to include phrases noting the absence of artificial growth hormones known by the acronym rbST (recombinant bovine Somatotropin), which were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration nearly 15 years ago and which are used by some dairy producers to increase their milk production and operational efficiencies.

Researchers and advocates are quick to point out that all milk contains bST, whether in its natural form or introduced during the production process. FDA and other agencies and scientific research have checked the hormone’s use and designated it as safe.

Still, consumers are paying a premium for milk labeled as rbST-free. A gallon of 2 percent store brand milk costs about $2.98. A popular brand name gallon of 2 percent labeled as rbST-free sells for $4.18. (It’s probably a safe bet that the markup isn’t going into the pockets of farmers.)

The sides are forming quickly among interested parties. One includes dairy farmers and others who believe labels that make such claims confuse consumers and place their dairies in a difficult economic position. On the other are some consumer advocates, processors and other dairy farmers, who think such information is helpful and allows consumers more choice.

It could come to a head early next month during a couple of public meetings near Columbus, as the state’s Ohio Dairy Labeling Advisory Committee listens to citizens’ comments. The sessions are scheduled for Dec. 6 from 1-6 p.m. and Dec. 19 from 8:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m., both at the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s headquarters in Reynoldsburg. We can thank Pennsylvania for the situation. Our neighbor to the east now prohibits phrases like “rbST Free” from milk jugs.

Pennsylvania’s position

Michael Pechart, policy director for the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, told attendees at a meeting earlier this months that processors cannot make any claims about the composition of their products that can’t be confirmed through laboratory analyses (at applicants’ expense).

So, bottled water that comes from a municipal source cannot be labeled as “spring water,” and cereal bars and fruit snacks must contain cereal and fruit, respectively (many do not). Products also can’t be labeled as being free of something that is not allowed anyway (pesticide-free water, for example) or that naturally occurs in the product (like hormones in milk).

Fluid milk processors in Pennsylvania have to send labels to the state for review and approval before using them, Pechart said. Of the 140 processors in that state, 19 have been found out of compliance with the labeling requirements.

“We have notified those 19 dairies, and they have until Jan. 1 to resubmit a new label for review,” Pechart said, adding, “We believe that consumers need to make informed decisions. They need to be given the information to make those decisions.”

What the feds say

The state policy is comparable to federal guidelines established by the Food and Drug Administration. “BST-free we don’t consider to be just and fair,” said Matthew H. Pitts, a regional milk specialist with the FDA’s Public Health Service. “We consider it to be false and misleading, because bST occurs in milk anyway.”

But neither the federal government, nor the state of Ohio (which is trying to determine an appropriate policy) can stop the bST-free labels from appearing on milk at present. “We’re not going to tell anyone that they have to remove this off the shelf,” Pitts said. “We consider it mislabeling, but we don’t have the power at FDA to embargo.”

X Marc Kovac is The Vindicator’s corespondent in Columbus.