House Moves to Strip Food Warning Labels

[robyn]

[...]But for those of you who are so worried about labels - raise your hand if you're taking certain statin drugs (like many middle-aged people).  Did you know you shouldn't be eating grapefruit?  So should we start slapping warnings on grapefuit?  What about labels on products that are bad for diabetics - or people who are lactose intolerant?  Do you want to see the "peanut labels" extended (if they are - the labels will be so long you'd have to spend half your life shopping if you read labels)?  Robyn

←

In my opinion, these are all good ideas, especially the labels on grapefruits. (Not on individual grapefruits, but on the sign for all the grapefruits, showing the price: "Warning: May interact with statin drugs.")

And don't forget that no-one is ever required to read labels. But while we're raising our hands, raise your hands if you ever amused yourself by reading the label on the cereal box.

←

The warning would have to be on every grapefruit - and every can/bottle/jar of stuff that contains grapefruit - unless you think that every fruitstand in Florida is going to put up a sign (and what about people who buy those boxes of citrus fruit that are shipped from Florida). Plus what about the juice - or the jars of grapefruit segments I buy.

BTW - we haven't scratched the surface of food warnings. Let's see - the one I see most often (because of what I eat) is the warnings associated with oysters and other raw shellfish products. That's required in restaurants here - and at supermarket counters - but - so far - you don't have to attach tiny labels to the raw seafood. Maybe you should have to do that - after all - I might buy some raw oysters to give as a present to friends - or I might simply present them on my dinner table to a group of unsuspecting diners.

Then there are the sulfite warnings. They're on food labels - like wine bottles - but should I have little pre-printed labels on my wine glasses.

What about lactose intolerance? Should every lactose product have warnings? Why should peanut intolerant people have greater rights than lactose intolerant people?

And let's not forget the wheat sufferers. They have rights too. Or people with gout who shouldn't eat foie gras. Or people with hypertension (food with salt needs salt warnings)? Or congestive heart failure (they shouldn't have too much fluid - so we need warnings on things like ice cream and the like which aren't obvious liquids). Or kids who get all riled up when they have products with sugar (need some warnings on those breakfast cereals).

I don't have all night - but I bet if we put our minds to it - we can come with at least 50 more things that various people need to be warned about.

On my part - I am an adult with GI problems. I know what I should and what I shouldn't eat. And I don't eat the things that I shouldn't eat. And since I can eat and do love peanuts - I resent all the preferential warning status given to peanuts - which frequently leads some entities - like airlines - to avoid serving even little tiny bags of peanuts. Why should someone's peanut sensitivities be more important than my food sensitivities?

As for California - there's a warning on or near just about every elevator that says (pursuant to state law) there's a cancer risk. Have never been able to figure that one out. Perhaps someone in California can help me.

Oh - and my husband and I do read food labels all the time. He has been on hypertension meds for over 30 years - and the last thing we want to do is OD him on foods with too much salt (and there are certainly lots of those around - even in the highest end food stores and restaurants). If I were going to pick one single warning in the world that I would allow on food labels - it is "this product contains too much salt to be healthy for anyone". There are probably 1000 times more people in the US who suffer from hypertension than all the other food sensitivities out there. And I suspect the ratio of people who die from hypertension and related diseases compared to those who die from peanuts is about 100,000 to 1. Robyn

[ruthcooks]

I take a sleep aid medication and it is labeled "Warning: may make you drowsy."

Another medication is labeled "Warning: may increase the likelihood of becoming pregnant." Fifteen years past menopause, this is of extreme relevance to me.

I also have a grapefruit warning. My doctor told me I would have to drink about TWO GALLONS of grapefruit juice to affect my grapefruit-sensitive-medication. And then what would happen? "Make the medication less effective," he said.

It all comes back to Americans being not willing to take responsibility for anything that happens to them, and the lawyers who foster this attitude.

[Pan]

Robyn, you make some good points, but do remember that sodium amounts must be included in the "nutrition facts" labels on products for sale in the US, so that at least that information is out there, which is more than I can say for potassium and phospherous amounts.

I think I agree with you and the others who've said that a big warning on statin medications about the risk of interaction with grapefruit should be sufficient. It might not be, but I do agree that if someone gets sick from eating grapefruits, that isn't the fault of the grapefruit farmers, distributors, or sellers.

[ghostrider]

From the original article -

Nationwide, as many as 200 state laws or regulations could be affected, according to the Congressional Budget Office. They include warnings about lead and alcohol in candy, arsenic in bottled water and many others.

The government would spend at least $100 million to answer petitions for tougher state rules, according to CBO.

Seems to me that the net effect of this legislation is to shift costs from the food corporations (ultimately borne by us consumers) to the feds (ultimately borne by us taxpayers).

So food (theoretically) gets a little cheaper, & taxes go up a little.

Either way, we pay.

If you go back and read the actual article that describes the proposed legislation, you'll see that the proposed legislation is *not* intended to remove warning labels.

←

First paragraph of article, sure sounds to me like the legislation will remove warning labels:

The House voted Wednesday to strip many warnings from food labels, potentially affecting alerts about arsenic in bottled water, lead in candy and allergy-causing sulfites, among others.

Later in the article, Waxman says the bill will overturn 200 state laws.

What's the reality here?

Edited March 12, 2006 by ghostrider (log)

[TPO]

It all comes back to Americans being not willing to take responsibility for anything that happens to them, and the lawyers who foster this attitude.

←

I agree that Americans need to take responsibility for what happens to them, I just don't know if removing warnings -- possibly making them less informed -- is the right way to make them take more responsibility.

What about lactose intolerance?  Should every lactose product have warnings?  Why should peanut intolerant people have greater rights than lactose intolerant people?

←

I'm not familiar with lactose intolerance, but I thought that was covered by the milk warnings on labels. I like such labels because they warn people when a food not containing milk, peanuts, or wheat was made in a plant where those products were processed.

But last I knew this was all voluntary labeling so if I understand this bill correctly, states could no longer require that we be warned if food without wheat as an ingredient may have been made in a machine that just processed wheat because the FDA does not require it.

[Patrick S]

What I want to know is WHY food producers are against warning labels.  If there is something potentially harmful to certain people, why wouldn't they want to warn them to avoid the product.

←

If you go back and read the actual article that describes the proposed legislation, you'll see that the proposed legislation is *not* intended to remove warning labels. Rather, it just takes the warning labeling power out of the states hands and puts it in the FDA's hands.

←

And since the FDA has deemed the bovine growth hormone safe, a state will not be able to put it on a warning label. I appreciate being able to choose products that don't come from injected cows, even though the FDA has deemed these injections safe.

←

Right, FDA has determined that BGH is safe, and therefore no state should have the right to mandate "warning labels" stating otherwise. You may wish to have the information to choose milk from non-BGH supplemented cows, but you have no basis to demand such information in the form of a "warning label," which are specifically supposed to warn of human health risks.

Having said that, does the legislation in question remove the right of producers of milk to add labels relating to BGH, as many of them choose to do right now? I understand that it would prevent a state from mandating such labels, but I don't know that it would prohibit private milk producers from doing the same kind of labelling they are doing right now. If the legislation in question prohibits factually accurate and nonmisleading labelling by private companies, I would certainly oppose it. But if the legislation applies only to what types of food labeling the states can mandate, that would be very different.

[Patrick S]

What I want to know is WHY food producers are against warning labels.  If there is something potentially harmful to certain people, why wouldn't they want to warn them to avoid the product.

←

If you go back and read the actual article that describes the proposed legislation, you'll see that the proposed legislation is *not* intended to remove warning labels. Rather, it just takes the warning labeling power out of the states hands and puts it in the FDA's hands.

←

And since the FDA has deemed the bovine growth hormone safe, a state will not be able to put it on a warning label. I appreciate being able to choose products that don't come from injected cows, even though the FDA has deemed these injections safe.

←

Right, FDA has determined that BGH is safe, and therefore no state should have the right to mandate "warning labels" stating otherwise. You may wish to have the information to choose milk from non-BGH supplemented cows, but you have no basis to demand such information in the form of a "warning label," which are specifically supposed to warn of human health risks.

Having said that, does the legislation in question remove the right of producers of milk to add labels relating to BGH, as many of them choose to do right now? I understand that it would prevent a state from mandating such labels, but I don't know that it would prohibit private milk producers from doing the same kind of labelling they are doing right now. If the legislation in question prohibits factually accurate and nonmisleading labelling by private companies, I would certainly oppose it. But if the legislation applies only to what types of food labeling the states can mandate, that would be very different.

←

I downloaded and read most of HR4167, and it would indeed appear to affect only the state, not producers themselves.

"Except as provided in sub-sections © and (d), no State or political subdivision 17of a State may, directly or indirectly, establish or 18 continue in effect under any authority any notifica- 19tion requirement for a food that provides for a warn- 20ing concerning the safety of the food, or any compo- 21nent or package of the food, 22

So, it would appear that HR4167 would have no effect on the already-existing, voluntary labelling of milk from non-BGH supplement cows.

[halloweencat]

milk producers who use bgh already have sued to prevent non-gbh milk producers from labelling their products as such. i'm not up on the status of the suits or any resolutions, but the arguement from the bgh users was that labelling a product non-bgh was essentially the same thing as a warning label, since it implied that something was worrisome or dangerous about bgh.

the corporate dairy industry has been fighting this particular fight for a while. i wonder if this bill will help them in their cause (which i do not support).

cheers --

[Patrick S]

milk producers who use bgh already have sued to prevent non-gbh milk producers from labelling their products as such.  i'm not up on the status of the suits or any resolutions, but the arguement from the bgh users was that labelling a product non-bgh was essentially the same thing as a warning label, since it implied that something was worrisome or dangerous about bgh.

←

There have been many complaints made to the FDA regarding labels that are considered misleading (e.g. that make unsubstantiated health risk claims), or that make flatly false factual claims ("Contains no hormones" -- all milk contains hormones), and in many cases the FDA has agreed, but as far as I know there has never been any complaint or lawsuits against labels that are not misleading, like "This milk came from cows not given rBGH supplements."

Edited March 13, 2006 by Patrick S (log)

[halloweencat]

here's one....i'm pretty sure there have been others. i remember this being a bit of a tummult a few years ago...

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0708-10.htm

Published on Tuesday, July 8, 2003 by the Portland Press Herald (Maine) 

Oakhurst Sued by Monsanto Over Milk Advertising 

by Matt Wickenheiser

 

Biotechnology giant Monsanto Co. has sued Oakhurst Dairy of Portland, saying Oakhurst's claim that its milk doesn't contain any artificial growth hormones is essentially misleading.

Monsanto, based in Missouri, claims there is no scientific proof that the milk is any different from that produced by cows that have been treated with the hormones.

"We believe Oakhurst labels deceive consumers; they're marketing a perception that one milk product is safer or of higher quality than other milk," said Jennifer Garrett, director of technical services for Monsanto's dairy business. "Numerous scientific and regulatory reviews throughout the world demonstrate that that's unfounded. The milk is the same, and the amount of protein, fats, nutrients, etc., are all the same."

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Boston, demands that Oakhurst stop advertising that it doesn't use milk from hormone-treated cows. It also asks that the dairy stop putting labels reading "Our Farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones" on its milk jugs.

...(more...)...

The labeling is a market distinguisher for Oakhurst, said Bennett, and is so important to the dairy that it pays a premium of 20 cents on every 100 pounds of milk for the notarized guarantee. That would amount to $500,000 in 2002, when Oakhurst processed 250 million pounds of milk.

Lee Quarles, a spokesman for the Missouri company, said the suit was filed because Monsanto believes Oakhurst's ads and labels are deceptive and also disparaged Monsanto's products with the inference that milk from untreated cows was better than milk from hormone-treated cows. Oakhurst was also stepping up its advertising and marketing efforts in recent months, leading to the lawsuit, said Quarles.

"If in fact they are attempting to stop us from using our labeling, I think it strikes me as very odd that somebody could conceivably prohibit a company from telling people what's not in their product," said Bennett. "On principle, it's also a question of free speech. The world seems a little bit discombobulated when somebody attempts to prohibit you from trying to do the right thing."

(more...)

oakhurst was not saying the bgh was bad, but it was prominently stating that it's product was (and would always be) free from artificially introduced hormones. monsanto went after oakhurst for essentially stating that its product was free of something (like the "contains no msg" labelling, and similar), but which did not explicitly disparage monsanto's product.

in another article related to this, the lawsuit was apparently settled when oakhurst agreed to add a line to its packaging that stated that the fda had found that there was no difference between milk from cows treated with bgh and cows that were not.

i think there might have been others, but that's the one i remember.

cheers --

Edited March 13, 2006 by halloweencat (log)

[JohnL]

From the original article -

Nationwide, as many as 200 state laws or regulations could be affected, according to the Congressional Budget Office. They include warnings about lead and alcohol in candy, arsenic in bottled water and many others.

The government would spend at least $100 million to answer petitions for tougher state rules, according to CBO.

Seems to me that the net effect of this legislation is to shift costs from the food corporations (ultimately borne by us consumers) to the feds (ultimately borne by us taxpayers).

So food (theoretically) gets a little cheaper, & taxes go up a little.

Either way, we pay.

If you go back and read the actual article that describes the proposed legislation, you'll see that the proposed legislation is *not* intended to remove warning labels.

←

First paragraph of article, sure sounds to me like the legislation will remove warning labels:

The House voted Wednesday to strip many warnings from food labels, potentially affecting alerts about arsenic in bottled water, lead in candy and allergy-causing sulfites, among others.

Later in the article, Waxman says the bill will overturn 200 state laws.

What's the reality here?

←

The reality is we are a nation of regulations--hundreds of thousands of pages of regulatory rules and regulations etc.

It costs a lot of money to do any kind of business here--much of that is to comply with regulations etc.

This issue here is--as I see it--our system of checks and balances at work to make a bit of sense out of our desire to have the government protect us from everything all the time. A fool proof absolutely safe paradise/utopia if you will.

Sometimes the process makes things worse or more complicated--most of the time it seems to work.

We do have a tendency to err on the side of safety--hence the plethora of silly labels warning us not to do things that anyone with an ounce of common sense would "know" not to do.

people are, ultimately responsible for themselves.

everyone should be aware of what they eat and make a point--within reason--to be informed.

there are a lot of sources of information available.

between--government (yes, politicians), government agencies industry, the tort and court system, the media (eGullet included) we have a pretty "safe" society. perfect? no I am convinced there is no utopia attainable but we shouldn't stop trying to get there.

reason, responsibility, moderation, common sense can certainly help us in the quest!

[Patrick S]

here's one....i'm pretty sure there have been others.  i remember this being a bit of a tummult a few years ago...

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0708-10.htm

Published on Tuesday, July 8, 2003 by the Portland Press Herald (Maine) 

Oakhurst Sued by Monsanto Over Milk Advertising 

by Matt Wickenheiser

 

Biotechnology giant Monsanto Co. has sued Oakhurst Dairy of Portland, saying Oakhurst's claim that its milk doesn't contain any artificial growth hormones is essentially misleading.

Monsanto, based in Missouri, claims there is no scientific proof that the milk is any different from that produced by cows that have been treated with the hormones.

"We believe Oakhurst labels deceive consumers; they're marketing a perception that one milk product is safer or of higher quality than other milk," said Jennifer Garrett, director of technical services for Monsanto's dairy business. "Numerous scientific and regulatory reviews throughout the world demonstrate that that's unfounded. The milk is the same, and the amount of protein, fats, nutrients, etc., are all the same."

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Boston, demands that Oakhurst stop advertising that it doesn't use milk from hormone-treated cows. It also asks that the dairy stop putting labels reading "Our Farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones" on its milk jugs.

...(more...)...

The labeling is a market distinguisher for Oakhurst, said Bennett, and is so important to the dairy that it pays a premium of 20 cents on every 100 pounds of milk for the notarized guarantee. That would amount to $500,000 in 2002, when Oakhurst processed 250 million pounds of milk.

Lee Quarles, a spokesman for the Missouri company, said the suit was filed because Monsanto believes Oakhurst's ads and labels are deceptive and also disparaged Monsanto's products with the inference that milk from untreated cows was better than milk from hormone-treated cows. Oakhurst was also stepping up its advertising and marketing efforts in recent months, leading to the lawsuit, said Quarles.

"If in fact they are attempting to stop us from using our labeling, I think it strikes me as very odd that somebody could conceivably prohibit a company from telling people what's not in their product," said Bennett. "On principle, it's also a question of free speech. The world seems a little bit discombobulated when somebody attempts to prohibit you from trying to do the right thing."

(more...)

oakhurst was not saying the bgh was bad, but it was prominently stating that it's product was (and would always be) free from artificially introduced hormones. monsanto went after oakhurst for essentially stating that its product was free of something (like the "contains no msg" labelling, and similar), but which did not explicitly disparage monsanto's product.

in another article related to this, the lawsuit was apparently settled when oakhurst agreed to add a line to its packaging that stated that the fda had found that there was no difference between milk from cows treated with bgh and cows that were not.

i think there might have been others, but that's the one i remember.

cheers --

←

Right, that's an example of potentially misleading label, since it could be taken to mean that some milk has rBGH in it, and some doesn't, when according to the FDA (IIRC), no milk has measurable rBGH in it, even from cows given rBGH, because they metabolize it before it ever ends up in milk. As long as you are clear that you are referring to a production technique ("cows not given rBGH") and not a compositional difference ("contains no rBGH"), there is no problem. The problem, of course, is that many consumers buy the milk from non-rBGH supplemented cows *solely* out of the belief that there is a significant compositional difference, these producers must carefully word their labels so as not to dispel that belief.

Edited March 13, 2006 by Patrick S (log)

[halloweencat]

hmmm...i actually don't think this is an example of misleading labelling. oakhurst's label said that it did not use milk from cows treated with bgh, and the pledge is not misleading either, just a statement that they will never use milk from bhg cows.

it seems monsanto was angling for the removal of all references of that nature, but found the additional fda/gbh reference enough to settle the lawsuit.

cheers --

[Patrick S]

hmmm...i actually don't think this is an example of misleading labelling.  oakhurst's label said that it did not use milk from cows treated with bgh, and the pledge is not misleading either, just a statement that they will never use milk from bhg cows.

←

The irony is that your last post proves clearly that the label was potentially misleading, and that you had in fact been mislead as to its meaning. To wit, you wrote:

oakhurst was not saying the bgh was bad, but it was prominently stating that it's product was (and would always be) free from artificially introduced hormones. monsanto went after oakhurst for essentially stating that its product was free of something (like the "contains no msg" labelling, and similar), but which did not explicitly disparage monsanto's product.

Your own choice of words proves that you were under the mistaken impression that there was a compositional difference in the "product," i.e. the milk, which is false, rather than just a difference in production techniques, which is true. You even compare Oakhurst's "no-rBGH" label to "no msg" labelling, which can hardly be interpreted as referring to anything other than a compositional difference. I don't wish to seem rude, but I think you just made the case for me very compellingly (that is, the case that some labels relating to rBGH are misleading).

[TPO]

hmmm...i actually don't think this is an example of misleading labelling.  oakhurst's label said that it did not use milk from cows treated with bgh, and the pledge is not misleading either, just a statement that they will never use milk from bhg cows.

←

I don't think it's a misleading label either. It's more like labels on eggs that come from cage-free chickens -- it's not that there is necessarily anything wrong with caged chickens, but some people simply prefer buying eggs from cage-free chickens. For me, it's not that I have anything against drinking milk that might have trace amounts of bgh in it, it's that I prefer spending my money on companies that don't drug their cows to increase milk production.

[Patrick S]

hmmm...i actually don't think this is an example of misleading labelling.  oakhurst's label said that it did not use milk from cows treated with bgh, and the pledge is not misleading either, just a statement that they will never use milk from bhg cows.

←

I don't think it's a misleading label either. It's more like labels on eggs that come from cage-free chickens -- it's not that there is necessarily anything wrong with caged chickens, but some people simply prefer buying eggs from cage-free chickens. For me, it's not that I have anything against drinking milk that might have trace amounts of bgh in it, it's that I prefer spending my money on companies that don't drug their cows to increase milk production.

←

No, of course its not misleading to say that your milk comes from cows that are not supplemented with rBGH, and I would be suprised if anyone could show me where anyone has been sued or the the FDA has taken action against a milk producer that makes this claim in a straightforward way. The problem with Oakhurst was that the label on the milk that read "Our Farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones". As halloweencat's own comments make clear, many consumers will misinterpret this label to mean that Oakhurst's milk is compositionally different from other brands of milk, which is not the case. Oakhurst has every right to point out that their cows were not supplemented with rBGH, so long as they do it in a way that doesn't imply a compositional difference.

For me, it's not that I have anything against drinking milk that might have trace amounts of bgh in it. . .

←

Good, because as Ive been pointing out, there is essentially no difference in the BGH content of milk whether it came from rBGH supplemented cows or not. Every glass of milk you ever drank had had BGH in it, no matter who produced it and what production techniques were used.

[MarketStEl]

No, of course its not misleading to say that your milk comes from cows that are not supplemented with rBGH, and I would be suprised if anyone could show me where anyone has been sued or the the FDA has taken action against a milk producer that makes this claim in a straightforward way. The problem with Oakhurst was that the label on the milk that read "Our Farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones". As halloweencat's own comments make clear, many consumers will misinterpret this label to mean that Oakhurst's milk is compositionally different from other brands of milk, which is not the case. Oakhurst has every right to point out that their cows were not supplemented with rBGH, so long as they do it in a way that doesn't imply a compositional difference. 

For me, it's not that I have anything against drinking milk that might have trace amounts of bgh in it. . .

←

Good, because as Ive been pointing out, there is essentially no difference in the BGH content of milk whether it came from rBGH supplemented cows or not. Every glass of milk you ever drank had had BGH in it, no matter who produced it and what production techniques were used.

←

I think that the statement Whole Foods Market prints on its "everyday value" brand of milk, 365, is a good example of an informative label that does not mislead.

It states that while no research has shown (or the FDA has not come across, I forget which) any danger to humans from consuming milk from cows treated with rBGH, WFM uses milk only from dairy farmers who do not treat their cows with the synthetic hormone. (I'm not quoting the label verbatim--this is the substance of the message, though.)

[Patrick S]

I think that the statement Whole Foods Market prints on its "everyday value" brand of milk, 365, is a good example of an informative label that does not mislead.

It states that while no research has shown (or the FDA has not come across, I forget which) any danger to humans from consuming milk from cows treated with rBGH, WFM uses milk only from dairy farmers who do not treat their cows with the synthetic hormone.  (I'm not quoting the label verbatim--this is the substance of the message, though.)

←

That sounds a lot more informative and less potentially misleading.

[ghostrider]

"We believe Oakhurst labels deceive consumers; they're marketing a perception that one milk product is safer or of higher quality than other milk," said Jennifer Garrett, director of technical services for Monsanto's dairy business. "Numerous scientific and regulatory reviews throughout the world demonstrate that that's unfounded. The milk is the same, and the amount of protein, fats, nutrients, etc., are all the same."

Right, that's an example of potentially misleading label, since it could be taken to mean that some milk has rBGH in it, and some doesn't, when according to the FDA (IIRC), no milk has measurable rBGH in it, even from cows given rBGH, because they metabolize it before it ever ends up in milk.

←

What the Monsanto mouthpiece is saying (milk is the same as far as safety & quality & "the amount of protein, fats, nutrients, etc.,"), is not what you are saying ("no milk has measurable rBGH in it,").

BTW, the WHole Foods label says "no significant difference" and "no test can now distinguish between milk from treated & untreated cows." Very carefully worded. Also not the same as "no milk has measurable rBGH in it," tho it may well emerge to be for all practical purposes.

Back on original topic, no one has yet refuted the reports that the legislation WILL remove state warning labels.

Edited March 14, 2006 by ghostrider (log)

[Patrick S]

Back on original topic, no one has yet refuted the reports that the legislation WILL remove state warning labels.

←

Why would anybody try to refute something that's obviously true? You appear to have been confused by something I wrote on Mar 10, when I left out the word "all" in the sentence: "If you go back and read the actual article that describes the proposed legislation, you'll see that the proposed legislation is *not* intended to remove [ALL] warning labels." I thought my meaning was pretty clear from the context of the rest of my post, and my other posts, where I pointed out that state but not federal labelling requirements would be affected, but apparently I was wrong, and apologize for the confusion.

[Patrick S]

"We believe Oakhurst labels deceive consumers; they're marketing a perception that one milk product is safer or of higher quality than other milk," said Jennifer Garrett, director of technical services for Monsanto's dairy business. "Numerous scientific and regulatory reviews throughout the world demonstrate that that's unfounded. The milk is the same, and the amount of protein, fats, nutrients, etc., are all the same."

Right, that's an example of potentially misleading label, since it could be taken to mean that some milk has rBGH in it, and some doesn't, when according to the FDA (IIRC), no milk has measurable rBGH in it, even from cows given rBGH, because they metabolize it before it ever ends up in milk.

←

What the Monsanto mouthpiece is saying (milk is the same as far as safety & quality & "the amount of protein, fats, nutrients, etc.,"), is not what you are saying ("no milk has measurable rBGH in it,").

←

Well, the Monsanto "mouthpiece" --which the rest of us would probably refer to as a spokesperson-- was only alotted a few lines of text in the article quoted above, so who knows what he/she may have said about rBGH specifically. I'm fairly confident that this spokeperson was aware that tests show that rBGH in pasteurized milk from rBGH supplemented cows, if it is present at all, is present at a concentration so low that it can not be measured even with extremely sensitive analytic techniques, and that even if it were present in very large amounts, it could not possibly have any real physiological significance since BGH does not interact with human GH receptors, and does not survive digestion anyway (which is why growth hormone has to be injected into cows, btw). I do need to correct a mistatement I made earlier: rBGH can be detected in milk from supplemented cows prior to pasteurization, at an extremely low concentration (~1ppb), but this is apparently destroyed by pasteurization, according to this source.

[azurite]

"In case you've missed recent developments, apparently "states rights" do not really exist any more, except as a historical concept. Given SCOTUS decisions like Ashcroft v Raich, the fed apparently has the right to regulate basically anything they like under the guise of regulating interstate commerce (even if there is no interstate commerce involved, apparently). As I said, "Personally, I don't care if food warning labels are solely the province of the fed or not, I just want them to be based on the best available science and not political expediency." As far as I am concerned, states should be able to add warning labels if they like, with the caveat that they are based on sound science (as judged by a concensus of experts in the relevant fields)."

While I agree with you on the slapback on state's rights (except on some issues--which aren't food related so I guess I won't mention them and also so I won't start ranting), I don't think that for the past few years, you can put 'best available science' in the same sentence as FDA unless you're going to also insert, "not true at this time and probably for the rest of the Bush Administration" as well. Not only has the BA sharply reduced funding for research but a number of federal agencies besides FDA have seen politics (BA politics) substituted for good science as a basis for regulatory decisions (and not just there but at institutions that receive federal funding--see the flap at Oregon State University because some of the faculty there tried to stop publication of a study that appeared to contradict Bush Admnistration 'salvage logging" policy and the "science" supporting that policy). Thus, it is quite possible, even likely, that if a state petitioned FDA to 'allow" it to include something else on the label if Bushian cronyism/'conservatism' mandated a denial, a denial it would be, regardless of how solid the research supporting such labeling.

BTW, apparently CA's required listing of the presence of benzene in soda has persuaded some soda manufacturers to reformulate--hard to see as a bad thing. And it's the feds, not CA (as far as I know) who classified benezene as a carcinogen--so if it was 'bad or junk science" to do so, it wasn't a state that did it.

Another poster asked why labeling is a problem--some years ago, some milk producers decided to state on their milk containers that they did not give their cows a specific hormone (manufactured by Monsanto I believe, to increase their milk production. They were threatened with litigation by Monsanto and pulled the cartons. Understand the producers weren't going to state on the cartons that the hormone was hazardous, just that they didn't give it to their cows (apparently, if nothing else, it increases the incidence of mastitis in cows--which in turn I guess would increase incidence of administration of antibiotic or possibly use of antibiotics chronically as prophylactic measure--which some might believe not a good idea .. .). For that matter, it wouldn't have been part of the "official" label contents. Even so, it was apparently something not to be tolerated at the time.

Last year Tillamook co-op decided to state publicly that none of their co-op members (Tillamook is a dairy co-operative headquartered in Tillamook, Oregon, sells milk, cheese, butter, ice cream and yogurt) used this hormone. No threatened lawsuit by Monsanto.... but, suddenly there was a call for a vote of all the members as some members 'suddenly' objected to fact that co-op might be telling them what they could and could not do with their cows. Fortunately, when put to a vote, the majority voted against hormone use. Of course, Monsanto denied it was responsible for the minority's sudden objection . . . .

My impression is that entities like Monsanto are concerned that if people who actually read labels or what's printed on food containers just see something saying we don't use X, then they'll 'leap to the conclusion' that X is bad for you.

There's been a push to include in the official "labels" if there are or are not GMO foods/seeds in a given packaged food. Given that the corporations that sell genetically modified seed swear up and down that GMOs are wonderful, don't hurt anything but pests, et., etc., you have to wonder, so, if that's true and everyone with a brain knows it, what the problem? The problem is that these corporations think it might make people wonder. Might make them suspicious. Might make them think and do some research. But if it's not there, you won't think about it. What you don't know can't hurt them.

Particularly not if a tame federal government keeps passing protection from liability statutes. And if the only research that gets done after awhile is research paid for by the corporation that wants to market the product. There's already been one or two areas in which it seems that the EU is moving ahead of the US--used to be that many other nations relied upon EPA's data. For all I know, perhaps they used to defer to FDA's and the CDCs data and findings as well. Probably not any more.

azurite

[Patrick S]

Another poster asked why labeling is a problem--some years ago, some milk producers decided to state on their milk containers that they did not give their cows a specific hormone (manufactured by Monsanto I believe, to increase their milk production.  They were threatened with litigation by Monsanto and pulled the cartons.  Understand the producers weren't going to state on the cartons that the hormone was hazardous, just that they didn't give it to their cows . . . For that matter, it wouldn't have been part of the "official" label contents.  Even so, it was apparently something not to be tolerated at the time.

←

Apparently you didn't bother to read the several posts immediately preceding your where we discussed this very issue. Based on what's been presented so far, it would appear you've got your facts all wrong. Apparently, Monsanto only objected to those labels which were could be (and usually were) mistaken by consumers as implying that some milk contained artificial hormones, but theirs did not. This is very different from claiming merely that you have not used artificial hormones in the production of the milk. Labels that are clear as to this crucial distinction between milk composition and milk production techniques have never generated any legal action, so far as I can tell, nor should they.

BTW, apparently CA's required listing of the presence of benzene in soda has persuaded some soda manufacturers to reformulate--hard to see as a bad thing. And it's the feds, not CA (as far as I know) who classified benezene as a carcinogen--so if it was 'bad or junk science" to do so, it wasn't a state that did it.

←

Well, first of all, no one has stated that all state labeling laws are based on junk science, merely that many of them are, and that, more importantly, there is apparently no mechanism at the state level to try to determine which is which. My own view is that they span the whole spectrum from utterly absurd to perfectly reasonable. And as I've already stated several times, I'm not necessarily opposed to states being able to add warning labels, I just think that there should exist an expert concensus (i.e. amongst toxicologists and epidemiologists rather than politicians) that the label is addressing an actual human health risk.

Now, to the example of benzene. First of all, we should recognize that benzene is produced both synthetically and naturally, and is present in many foods and drinks, not just soft drinks. It just happens to be present at a higher concentration in soft drinks, due to a reaction of sodium/potassium benzoate with ascorbic acid. The following comes from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) toxicological profile for benzene:

Benzene has been detected in a variety of food. Benzene has been reported to occur in fruits, fish, vegetables, nuts, dairy products, beverages, and eggs (EPA 1982e). Although benzene has been detected in dairy products, there is no evidence of the presence of benzene in either cow's milk or human breast milk (Hattemer-Frey et al. 1990). Eggs had the highest concentrations (2,100 ppb [uncooked] and 500–1,900 ppb [hard-boiled]), followed by haddock (100–200 ppb), Jamaican rum (120 ppb), irradiated beef (19 ppb), heat-treated canned beef (2 ppb), and butter (0.5 ppb). Lamb, mutton, veal, and chicken all had <10 ppb benzene (when the meats were cooked) (EPA 1980b, 1982e).

. . .

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration sponsored a 5-year study to determine the amount of volatile organics in food from 1996 to 2000. The results are shown in Table 6-3 (Fleming-Jones and Smith 2003). Benzene was found in cheddar cheese, cream cheese, margarine, butter, sour cream, ground beef, bologna, hamburger, cheeseburger, pork, beef frankfurters, tuna canned in oil, chicken nuggets, chocolate cake icing, sandwich cookie, chocolate chip cookies, graham crackers, sugar cookies, cake doughnuts with icing, french fries, apple pie, cola carbonated beverages, sweet roll Danish, potato chips, cheese pizza, cheese and pepperoni pizza, mixed nuts, fruit-flavored cereal, fruit flavored sorbet, popsicles, olive/safflower oil, scrambled eggs, peanut butter, popcorn popped in oil, blueberry muffins, coleslaw with dressing, raw banana, avocado, oranges, and strawberries. American cheese was the only food tested that did not contain benzene. Foods with the greatest maximum concentration of benzene included ground beef (maximum 190 ppb), raw bananas (maximum 132 ppb), carbonated cola (maximum 138 ppb) [*-note that this is based on analyses done years ago, and the more recent analyses in the US showed >1 to about 20ppb* to, and coleslaw with dressing (maximum 102 ppb).

You literally will ingest more benzene from breathing than you will from drinking a "contaminated" soda. That's according to George Pauli, the very FDA food safety expert that sounded the "alarm" recently about benzene in soft drinks. In fact, according to most experts who study this particular issue, >99% of the average person's exposure to benzene is via inhalation (e.g. MacLeod and Mackay, 1999), and only a very small fraction of your exposure comes from dietary sources. If you want to reduce your benzene exposure in a far more effective way, you should avoid automobile exhaust, cooking smoke, and tobacco smokers. You might also consider opening your windows, since the air inside the home tends to contain a much higher concentration of benzene than the air outside. Assuming you are indoors, the air you are breathing right now most likely has a benzene concentration of 2-5ppb. The water you drink also contains very low level of benzene.

MacLeod, M., and D. Mackay. 1999. An assessment of the environmental fate and exposure of benzene and the chlorobenzenes in Canada. Chemosphere, 38(8): 1777-1796.

Even in the most "contaminated" sodas levels we are talking about are levels for which there is literally no evidence of actual risk. The reason the case is regulatory borderline, however, is because the EPA has in fact established an "action level" of 5ppb in drinking water, and some soda contains benzene at levels as high as 10-20ppb. Since most people typically drink far more water than soda, and since FDA limits are set based on typical exposures, its not really clear what the "action level" for soda should be.

More generally, I would say that if a state wants to add warning labels for benzene, just because it is known to be a carcinogen at high doses and even though there is no evidence at all that it is a human health risk at the enormously lower levels to which humans are exposed via diet, then at the very least, it should be consistent about it, and put warning labels on all the foods and drinks that are known to contain the chemical, not just soda.

and warn about all the known carcinogens in food, rather than singling out only synthetic carcinogens, which contrary to popular belief constitute only a small fraction of our total dietary carcinogen exposure. For instance, the following foods:

absinthe, allspice, anise, apple, apricot, banana, basil, beet, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cantaloupe, caraway, cardamom, carrot, cauliflower, celery, cherries, chili pepper, chocolate, cinnamon, citronella, cloves, coffee, collard greens, comfrey herb tea, corn, coriander, currants, dill, eggplant, endive, fennel, garlic, grapefruit, grapes, guava, honey, hon eydew melon, horseradish, kale, lemon, lentils, lettuce, licorice, lime, mace, mango, marjoram, mint, mushrooms, mustard, nutmeg, onion, orange, oregano, paprika, parsley, parsnip, peach, pear, peas, black pepper, pineapple, plum, potato, radish, raspberries, rhubarb, rosemary, rutabaga, sage, sesame seeds, soybean, star anise, tarragon, tea, thyme, tomato,

turmeric, and turnip.

. . .contain the following all-natural carcinogens:

acetaldehyde methylformylhydrazone, allyl isothiocyanate, arecoline.HCl, benzaldehyde, benzyl acetate, caffeic acid, capsaicin, catechol, clivorine, coumarin, crotonaldehyde, 3,4-dihydro coumarin, estragole, ethyl acrylate, N2-γ-glutamyl-p-hydrazinobenzoic acid, hexanal methyl formylhydrazine, p-hydrazinobenzoic acid.HCl, hydroquinone, 1-hydroxy anthraqui none, lasio carpine, d-limonene, 3-methoxycatechol, 8-methoxypsoralen, N-methyl-N-formylhydrazine, α-methylbenzyl alcohol, 3-methylbutanal methylformylhydrazone, 4-methylcatechol, methyl eugenol, methylhydrazine, monocrotaline, pentanal methylformylhydrazone, petasitenine, quercetin, reserpine, safrole, senkirkine, sesamol, symphytine

But it wouldn't stop there. Far from it. We'd also have to include warning labels on many if not all fried foods (like fried starchy foods that contain acrylamide), and certainly most smoked and grilled foods (which contain carcinogens like 2-amino-3-methylimidazo[4,5-f ]quinoline and benzo-a-pyrene), and the warning labels on coffee would certainly be quite extensive. It might read something like this:

Coffee contains at least 21 known carcinogens, including acetaldehyde, benzaldehyde, benzene, benzofuran, benzo(a)pyrene, caffeic acid, catechol, 1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene, ethanol, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, furan, furfural, hydrogen peroxide, hydroquinone, isoprene, limonene, 4-methyl catechol, styrene, toluene, and xylene.

Btw, these are just the ones we know about for sure, and there are literally hundreds of chemicals in coffee yet to be tested. So, if we decided to label everything that we know to contain carcinogens, I'm afraid we'd have to label just about everything, and it may in fact end up being impossible for the average consumer to decide what's a risk and what's not. To me, it would make a lot more sense to restrict labeling to those cases where there is solid evidence of a human health risk.

* Most of the data above comes from:

Ames et al, 1990. Dietary pesticides (99.99% all natural). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 87, 7777-7781.

Gold et al, 2002. Misconceptions about the causes of cancer. In: Human and Environmental Risk Assessment: Theory and Practice, D. Paustenbach, ed., New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1415-1460.

I apologize for the length of this post. Sometimes there just no good way to make a long story short.

[MarketStEl]

Interesting and fascinating.

Perhaps we should just slap a label reading

"Everything you eat contains known potential carcinogens in varying quantities"

over the door of every supermarket and farmer's market and be done with it.

But I do have one question that might shed some light on certain manufacturing processes if an adequate answer exists.

Now,  to the example of benzene. First of all, we should recognize that benzene is produced both synthetically and naturally, and is present in many foods and drinks, not just soft drinks. It just happens to be present at a higher concentration in soft drinks, due to a reaction of sodium/potassium benzoate with ascorbic acid. The following comes from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) toxicological profile for benzene:

. . .

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration sponsored a 5-year study to determine the amount of volatile organics in food from 1996 to 2000. The results are shown in Table 6-3 (Fleming-Jones and Smith 2003). Benzene was found in cheddar cheese, cream cheese, margarine, butter, sour cream, ground beef, bologna, hamburger, cheeseburger, pork, beef frankfurters, tuna canned in oil, chicken nuggets, chocolate cake icing, sandwich cookie, chocolate chip cookies, graham crackers, sugar cookies, cake doughnuts with icing, french fries, apple pie, cola carbonated beverages, sweet roll Danish, potato chips, cheese pizza, cheese and pepperoni pizza, mixed nuts, fruit-flavored cereal, fruit flavored sorbet, popsicles, olive/safflower oil, scrambled eggs, peanut butter, popcorn popped in oil, blueberry muffins, coleslaw with dressing, raw banana, avocado, oranges, and strawberries. American cheese was the only food tested that did not contain benzene. [....]

←

How is it that American cheese contains no benzene, but one of its principal ingredients, Cheddar cheese, does? Does the heating of the cheese during pasteurization destroy the benzene? (There is no such thing as unpasteurized American cheese.) Edited to fix formatting errors and to add: And if that is the reason, why would most Cheddar sold in the United States--which is made from pasteurized milk--contain benzene?

Edited March 15, 2006 by MarketStEl (log)

[JohnL]

I think that the statement Whole Foods Market prints on its "everyday value" brand of milk, 365, is a good example of an informative label that does not mislead.

It states that while no research has shown (or the FDA has not come across, I forget which) any danger to humans from consuming milk from cows treated with rBGH, WFM uses milk only from dairy farmers who do not treat their cows with the synthetic hormone.  (I'm not quoting the label verbatim--this is the substance of the message, though.)

←

That sounds a lot more informative and less potentially misleading.

←

Interesting exchange here.

To illustrate (I hope) how sticky an issue this all is I offer an extreme and very hypothetical case:

Suppose a marketer put the following label on their produce:

"While no research (or the FDA) has determined that there is any danger to humans from agriculturally safe soils all our produce is produced through the use of hydroponics--our vegetables never come in to contact with dirt of any kind."

or

"scientific studies have shown that agricultural soils can contain traces of radioactive elements..."

or

studies have shown that soil can contain bacteria...

or etc etc etc

What I am getting at--is someone can create the impression that there may be something wrong with anything in the desire to establish one's products as superior or safer.

Warning labels can be beneficial but they can also create more confusion and can be misused.

by the way--I hope I am not causing any more confusion with my post!

Edited March 15, 2006 by JohnL (log)