Re: rbst state labeling laws

I don't think Monsanto is a pure as snow..  60 Min. had a show that showed
how the head of the FDA after getting the cancer causing aspertain approve
went to work for the Monsanto company that makes aspertain right after he
left the FDA.   Also I remember when they slip the rBST (the genetic
engineered gene that open the flood gates )in on the people of the earth
Monsanto had folks that use to work for Monsanto working  for the USDA.
These guys are in bed together.   look at how the FBI lab just admitted
that their lab favored what the prosecutors wanted them to favor. Hummmm.
Also Monsanto  just had to pull false ads they were running about their
roundup .With all there scientists they can not even tell when they are
lying.  That's what that was lying.    Now I just hear this stuff as I am a
farmer and no little about all this.  I cannot understand how these folks
get away with changing life as we know it on earth for money.  I am a
simple man but even I can see whole countries don't want their frankenstein
life forms so why should I trust them... They will not label and soon even
labels will not make any difference because the USDA will if they haven't
already be releasing Gene altered arthropods and ever micro-organisms which
are the main stay and the very basic of the soil food web. .They can not
control these things at all.  These are the mad scientist that in my youth
they use to write horror stories about. I wish there was a way to avoid
their wickedness but alas they are way too powerful.  I am suppressed they
can get away with releasing this stuff on the Vice Presidents watch as I
thought he claims to be an environmentalist.  How does making plants that
are herbicide resistant stop herbicides from ending up in our drinking
water.  I don't see how the USDA can release these life forms and yet they
can not come up with a National Organic Standards.  It has been over 7
years and still no word.  Even if the USDA passes on the standard as it is
now APHIS and FSIS will hold it ransom and fight to pollute the organic
food system with genetically modified organisms.  Yes this is the same
APHIS that just a while back was so worried about non native releases now
they themselves are sanctioning not just non native but gene altered
organisms.  I guess it just depends on who can afford to sleep in the
Lincoln bedroom.  I hope the Organic folks do not compromise their position
on GMO's  and bend their ethics just to hurry this bullshit program along.
I say forget about the National Standards as these folks proved to me after
over 7 years that they are only interested in taxing organic farmers.  Look
at the thousands upon thousands that the State of Ca. have stolen from
organic farmers with their CDFA's organic program. They are not doing us
any good and in fact are taking our money just because we want to farm
organic and the polluters play for free.You know how these big guys
eliminate competition easy they just change the rules so they win non
chemical farmers lose but it is man kind that will be the loser .  I grow
up with DDT, I use to eat the lead paint off my crib and I even had a glow
in the dark radiation watch.  I know these scientists make ma stakes that
can have great harmful effects on our earth.  Monsanto is not curing cancer
they are just making money .  Its just like Monsanto to sue a small dairy .
 Any way this is just my opinion .  Never Mind!
and the band plays on.

   At 09:26 AM 5/5/97 -0400, David S. Conner wrote:
>It wasn't Monsanto that sued Vermont. It was 2 grocers
>associations: Int'l Dairy Foods Assoc. and Grocery Manufacturers 
>of America
>Monsanto did sue a small dairy in Waco TX called Pure Milk and 
>Ice Cream who was labeling their products rBST free, claiming 
>that it discriminated against their product. But in a 
>confidential out of court settlement, Pure Milk was allowed to 
>label voluntarily. For a reference, see The Austin 
>American-Stateman, June 17, 1995 ("Agreement clears Waco ads")
>David Conner
>Center for Rural Studies
>207 Morrill Hall, UVM
>Burlington, VT 05405
>(802) 656-3021
>FAX: (802) 656-0776
>On Sat, 3 May 1997, Teige Davidson wrote:
>> Current Bills introduced for 1997
>> MA "This milk was produced by cows injected with synthetic BGH."
>> VT  Authorize Voluntary Labeling of rBGH products
>> producer affidavit "every milk producer doing business in vermont who
>> desires to sell milk
>> to a handler doing business in vermont shall, by affidavit, notify such
>> handler that such
>> milk is 
>> 	1) is from cows treated with rBST or
>> 	2) is from cows which are no, and have not been with 90 days prior
>> 	to the 	
>> 	notification, treated with rBST, and swears he or she will notify
>> 	his or her 	
>> 	handler at least 90 days befor using rBST in the production of
>> 	milk by such
>> 	cows.
>> NJ require distributors to label  and keep affidavit and requires labeling
>> 	of consumer
>> 	products if it contains rBST 
>> 	(from lexus/nexus)
>> NY also has a bill pending (does anyone know for sure)
>> In addition four states passed laws in 1994.
>> ME (enacted april 12) directs farmer who ue rbst to register that
>> information with the dairies they supply. The state also established a
>> "maine quality seal" label from dairy products produced from cows not
>> treated with rBST.
>> MN (may 11, 1994) authorized a voluntary labeling that state, "milk in
>> this product is from cows not treated with rBGH" and may include the
>> statement "Farmer Certified rBGH-free"
>> VT (april 13, 1994) requires that all dairy products derived from cows
>> treated with rBST be labeled as such.
>> (This one Monsanto knocked down, did they do the same to any other state
>> bills?)
>> WI(april 28, 1994) authorized voluntary labeling claims "Farmer Certified
>> rBGH free"
>> Has any other states tried to have mandatory rBGH labeling?
>> How many states has Monsanto sued other than Veromnt? (would anyone care
>> to elaborate on the Vermont happenings?)
>> If a state doesn't have a voluntary labelling law, are companies free to
>> label their products? Didn't monsanto sue 2 dairies on this in 1994?
>> A question about the mastitis issue. According to an office of technology
>> assessent biotech in 1992, it showed that dairy cow production has
>> increased by 100% since 1950 (per cow from 8000 to 15000 lbs/yr). If that
>> is so (a result of artificial insemination, better feeding and more
>> precise milking times) how did this impact the incidence of mastitis since
>> 1950?
>> I have heard that the national organics standards that is pending is up in
>> the air on whether gmo's can be organic . . . Since rBGH is cleary a
>> hormone, I assume that it is not an issue or is it? 
>> Teige Davidson
>> Graduate Student
>> Tufts University
>> School of Nutrition Science & Policy
>> Agriculture, Food & Environment Program
>> Medford, Massachusetts