[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Vissicitudes of BST



Speaking of labeling, the state law in Vermont was a resounding 
flop. It was eventually declared unconstitutional (the judge 
said the manufacturer's right not to divulge its production 
process was greater than the public's right to know-scary, 
huh?). Yet even while it was on the books, only about 10% of 
Vermontersboth noticed the label and could correctly identify 
what it means. It was a mandatory law that required labels, but 
the possible ways of labeling were =so many and so poorly 
publicized (it seems) as to be incomprehensible.
The key it seems to me is to implement voluntary BST-free labeling
along with consumer education on the issue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Conner
Center for Rural Studies
207 Morrill Hall, UVM
Burlington, VT 05405
(802) 656-3021
FAX: (802) 656-0776
dconner@zoo.uvm.edu

On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, E. Ann Clark wrote:

> Ron:  thanks for the copy of Rachel's - I had kept it myself in hopes 
> of framing it somewhere prominent on the day BST was finally 
> pronounced dead.  I keep hoping.  
> 
> You mention labelling, and I have been surprised at how many people 
> outside of the applied agricultural community do not know that the 
> milk they are drinking could come from cows dosed with BST, or that 
> the tomatoes they are eating could (soon) be FlavrSaver tomatoes etc.  
> Everyone seems to assume that a) the government will protect them, 
> and b) they will do the "right" and logical thing and label such 
> products, just as they now label by country of origin.  Wrong on both 
> counts.  Ann
> ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca
> Dr. E. Ann Clark
> Associate Professor
> Crop Science
> University of Guelph
> Guelph, ON  N1G 2W1
> Phone:  519-824-4120 Ext. 2508
> FAX:  519 763-8933
> 



References: