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

Re: rbst state labeling laws

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