BGH labeling laws baffle dairy producers - bovine growth hormone

Vegetarian Times, July, 1995 by Jan Parr

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finally has agreed that dairy producers may advertise and label their food "free of bovine growth hormone (BGH)." However, fears of lawsuits, pressures from grocery chains and confusing state regulations are keeping most companies from labeling their products, even though consumers say they want them.

The blame can be placed with the FDA, which has created confusion by formulating voluntary labeling guidelines that don't have the force of law behind them. Because the agency says mandatory labels are illegal, each dairy producer must write its own, then each state decides whether to change or remove the labels. The problem arises when products are shipped across state lines, when wording acceptable to one state may be removed or changed by another.

According to one survey, 80 percent of consumers are concerned about BGH which boosts both cows' milk production and the incidence of mastitis, leading to increased use of antibiotics in die animals. "Thousands of stores and dairy processors have at least looked into labeling," says Ronny Cummins, director of the Washington D.C.-based Pure Food Campaign. He adds that two lawsuits and thousands of threatening letters mailed to dairy processors by BGH producer Monsanto Co. have had a chilling effect. Monsanto spokesperson Tom McDermott says the company sent hundreds of letters to producers and retailers but denies that the were threatening.

The Pure Milk and Ice Cream Co. of Waco, Texas, is being sued by Monsanto for putting BGH-free labels on its milk. The legal basis is a federal statute that prohibits unfair competition that takes the form of false and deceptive advertising and promotion.

Pure Milk's General Manager Mickey Williams says his company is being sued because "the statement that we do not use BGH gives the inference that there is something wrong with cows that do have the BGH." The objection comes even though the company's label includes the state-mandated and federally-recommended disclaimer that there is "no difference" between milk from cows treated with BGH and cows that are not. But and [doesn't] intend to change it," Williams says.

Swiss Valley Farms of Davenport, Iowa, also was sued by Monsanto and has settled out of court. It no longer advertises its products as BGH-free, but still uses milk from cows not treated with the hormone.

Perhaps the most high-profile company to be cowed into label removal is Waterbury, Vt.-based Ben & Jerry's. Spokesperson Alan Parker says the company sent proposed label wording to dozens of state agencies for their input, but couldn't create wording that satisfied everyone. "We received such a wide range of responses that we couldn't formulate a label that would be permissible in all states," he says. "When your customer base is in all 50 states, it makes it hugely complex, costly and impossible to try to meet a whole host of requirements."

BGH labeling in Vermont was halted after several trade organizations sued the state over what Vermont officials interpreted as mandatory labeling requirements.

Cedar Grove Cheese Co. in Plain, Wis., has had its share of troubles as well. "I was told [by Louisiana state regulators] that my product would be confiscated [if it had a BGH-free label]," owner Bob Wills says. As a result, the company had to remove labels from cheeses sent to some states. What's more, state-mandated wording takes up so much room that Cedar Grove has moved it from the front of its products to the side.

Last year, the Pure Food Campaign sued the FDA in Wisconsin District Court, asking the agency to revoke approval of BGH or require labeling. Cummins says a decision could be reached any day. The FDA did not respond to repeated phone calls.

For a list of companies that don't use milk from BGH-treated cows, call the Pure Food Campaign at (800) 253-0681.