foodperson.com

You are what you eat

foodperson.com header image 2

Yes, it’s time to speak up—again—on rBGH

March 18th, 2009 · 2 Comments · General

Looks like our Kansas lawmakers again are wasting taxpayers’ time and money but seeking legislation to shelter dairies that use recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) to boost milk production.

We’ve been here before. Enough already. Tell your lawmakers. The Center for Food Safety makes it easy.

Tags:

2 Comments so far ↓

  • Jennifer

    Kerschen sent me a non-canned (I assume) response. Here’s what it says:

    Please allow me to give you some background information so that perhaps
    you can see my concern for dairy families interests in HB 2295. I have
    been a dairy farmer for 45 years. The year I started grade school is the
    year I began working on our family’s farm. My brothers and I went
    into the business for ourselves in 1974. Our family milked between 75
    and 200 cows twice a day. During that time we never used rBST,
    although many of our neighbors did.

    This technology is a management tool that every producer has the choice
    to implement on his/her farm. They must decide if they want to pursue
    the extra care and management needed to gain the benefits of the
    product. I must admit that those who successfully use this product have
    gained an efficiency that has continued over the past 16 years, when it
    was first approved by the FDA.

    I know of no dairy farmer who would use a product that was not declared
    safe by the FDA. Milk is one of the most regulated products in the food
    business. Every sample that leaves the farm is tested for a number of
    quality conditions which include, bacteria, somatic cell, antibiotics,
    etc. BST is naturally found in milk samples, whether a producer is
    using the product or not. That is why a producer must sign an affidavit
    which states he is not using the product.

    The costs to segregate milk supplies is paid by the producers . On the
    average, the producer receives about 5 cents a gallon for this effort.
    The retailer collects between 50 cents to $1.00 for the same product.

    Now some retailers are proclaiming their milk is “antibiotic “ free
    when all milk by law must be antibiotic free. This is about selective
    marketing, to influence consumers to assume that other products are less
    desirable because of the label.

    We want consumers to know what is in their food. We support accurate
    labeling. I have 5 children myself and a grandson and would never allow
    them to consume a product that is harmful to them. By the way, I have
    never taken a cent from Monsanto and have often been critical of their
    handling of the product rBST. I hope we can reach a mutual
    understanding that protects consumers, dairy producers and their product
    manufacturers so interstate commerce can continue as it should.

    Frustrating.

  • Janet Majure

    Canned, I think; he sent me the same thing. Meanwhile, see today’s post.