|
VOLUME XVI, NO. 1 |
TEXAS DAIRY REVIEW |
JANUARY 2007 |
 |
|||
|
Is rbST-free milk really a consumer-driven
product? |
|||
|
Is rbST-free milk really a consumer-driven product? |
|||
|
In the early 90s, Monsanto Dairy launched rbST (recombinant Bovine Somatotropin), into the marketplace for dairy producers to use as a management tool to enhance dairy cow productivity. Under the brand name of Posilac, the product was officially approved by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) in September of 1993. During their rbST approval process, the FDA determined that the genetically engineered form of bST is virtually identical to a cow’s natural somatotropin, a hormone produced in the pituitary gland that stimulates milk production. The FDA concluded that there is no significant difference between milk from treated and untreated cows and that it did not have the authority to require special labeling for milk and dairy products from rbST-treated cows. In addition, they stated producers have no basis to claim that milk from cows not treated with rbST is safer than milk from rbST-treated cows. Lately, there has been a sudden push in the marketplace to distinguish a difference between rbST-free milk and conventional milk through distinct labeling efforts. For instance, Bordon’s milk now has a label that says “naturally produced without artifcial hormones.” Oak Farms and Schepps both read “Our farmers pledge no artificial growth hormones.” Some processors, coops, and milk marketing agencies are saying the attention for rbST free milk is consumer-driven. Others, however, disagree and speculate that it’s more about money.
In the past few months, milk producers have been asked by some of their cooperatives to voluntarily sign affidavits that state they will discontinue the use of rbST. G.H. Cain of Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., (DFA), said the coop is answering to processors, such as Dean Foods, who refuse to accept any more milk treated with rbST. In order to fulfill these processor requirements, the Greater Southwest Milk Marketing Agency, a combination of DFA and three other major cooperatives, launched a new program in October that offers their producer-members an attractive .50 per hundredweight incentive to stop using rbST. If a producer chooses to continue the use of rbST, he forfeits the premium. At present, the agency reports that 85% of their members have signed affidavits. According to Cain, the choice is strictly the dairyman’s prerogative. He said the .50 per hundredweight premium is collected from the processors and the revenue is divided among the non-rbST producers. However, some dairymen challenge the agency’s program, saying the .50 per hundredweight premium sounds good but just doesn’t figure out that way when you put it to pen and paper. One dairy producer said, “it comes out to more like .17 per hundredweight.” While Cain said he is unsure of the actual percentage of consumers who are driving the market for rbST-free milk, Kevin Holloway of Monsanto Dairy points out that about 5% of the milk is labeled as organic or specialty milk---and 95% is not. Other dairy experts have said the 5% percentage could even be a little less. Regardless, the organic trend by speciality groups for naturally produced milk has seemed to push the rbST free milk into existence. Are the coops really answering to processor demands, who in turn, say they are satisfying a new consumer trend? Or is it all a marketing tactic that allows for charging at least $1 more for non-treated rbST milk in the retail stores by cashing in on the ignorance of consumers who are paying that extra dollar for a difference that is only in the label, not in the product? Milk has always been a healthy, nutritious, and safe product. But, this sudden interest to distinguish between conventional milk and rbST-free milk could imply otherwise…strictly because of the label on the front of the carton. Dairy experts who have studied this labeling action wonder if consumers are being fooled into thinking there’s a difference by what the label implies or if consumers are even aware of the FDA disclaimer on the back of the carton that says “there’s no significant difference.” It appears that the same milk is competing with the same milk but at staggering price differences for no difference at all. Some feel the higher prices being tagged on to rbST free milk could eventually have an adverse effect on the milk market, driving people to buy other lower-priced beverages. Milk competing against milk does not promote a sound and compatible industry image. Although different milk brands have always competed with one another, many of them are owned by the same dairy conglomerate, such as Dean Foods. Experts say the focus for competition in the marketplace should be on other beverages. “Milk competes with other beverages but attacking FDA approved technology will make milk less attractive to consumers,” Holloway said. Some people are of the opinion that the new agency program is stepping on the rights of the producers by coercing them (with the promised .50/cwt premium) to give up a technologically advanced management tool such as rbST. Terry Etherton, from Penn State University, spoke to dairymen about the use of rbST at a meeting in Lebanon County, PA in late Oct. First, Etherton pointed out all dairymen should have the right to use a safe and effective biotechnoloy that improves profitability; Secondly, he spoke about the tactics employed by some cooperativeS to “persuade” producers to stop using the biotechnology (paying a small incentive to discontinue use of rbST or levying a charge if use of rbST continues); and thirdly, he discussed the rationale used by some cooperatives, processors and retailers that rbST free milk is being promoted in the marketplace because of consumer concern about the technology. “My view is that the latter argument is simply a ‘manufactured’ justification since there is no evidence from well-organized and conducted surveys of consumer attitudes about food safety that indicates there is any basis to make this distinction from a food safety perspective,” Etherton said. In a report by the International Food Information Council, entitled, “Food Biotechnology: A Study of the U.S. Consumer Attitudinal Trends, 2006,” indicates a significant majority of consumers have no concern about food biotechnology. Etherton concluded there is no scientific evidence that consumer concern is the driving force for the “push” that is occurring to promote rbST free milk. In addition, he said there is no interest among consumers for having information about biotechnology added to the label of milk or dairy products. *by Sherry Webb |
|||
|
|
|||
|
New operation: new logo |
|||
|
Don't be surprised when the milk trucks that you pass on the highway or that pull up to your dairy don't look the same as they did a few days ago. As of Jan. 1, Milk Transport Services (MTS) changed its name to Western Dairy Transport, L.P. (WDT). According to officials at MTS, all of the operations of MTS will be sold to WDT. As of midnight on Jan. 1, 2007, all MTS employees became WDT employees. Officials have ensured that all MTS employees will be retained as well as customers, dairies, and delivery locations. Employees also will receive the same benefits and pay package under the new company as they did under the former MTS. Headquartered in Cabool, Mo., MTS was organized in 1998 with 219 employees. Currently, the company has over 1,100 employees. Since it's inception, MTS has hauled more than fifty-two billion pounds of milk----a distance of over four hundred and eight million miles. This is equivalent to traveling 19,385 times around the earth, or 1,000 trips to the moon and back. WDT will continue to lease its trailers for hauling milk from Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. (DFA). |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Erath County Jr. Livestock Show Teaches responsibility and builds character |
|||
|
The Erath County Junior Livestock Show is just around the corner set for Jan. 6, 7, 8, and 9. The Livestock Show is about much more than what it may seem. It's more than just walking into the show ring with an animal on show day. It's about building character in our young people and the life lessons they learn caring for their animals, showing their animals and sometimes parting with their animals after the show. It's about learning to be a gracious winner as well as a gracious loser. Erath County Extension Agent Robert Scott recently addressed the Quality Counts curriculum that teaches young livestock exhibitors character, education and quality assurance. Quality Counts is designed around the Six Pillars of Character created by the Josephson Institute of Ethics. The Six Pillars are: Trustworthiness, Respect, Responsibility, Fairness, Caring, and Citizenship. Quality Counts takes each pillar and relates it to how youth livestock exhibitors can develop and use these traits with their livestock projects. Responsibility is a major character-building tool that youngsters will use for their entire life. When we hear a person is responsible, what traits come to mind? A responsible person is someone that is on time, does what they say they are going to do, and honors the rules. These are not the only way a person shows responsibility; in fact, there are many more. Responsibility also means that you are accountable for your actions or you are accountable to someone. If you are involved in the youth livestock program, you have several responsibilities. One of the major responsibilities is to the actual livestock project, whether it is a pig, goat, lamb or steer. The most important responsibility is to take care of the animal. This includes feeding and watering it daily, paying special attention to any and all of its needs, and providing for any medical needs the animal may have. An exhibitor can also show they are responsible by grooming the animal according to show regulations and never giving up in the show ring. Another responsibility is the responsibility to learn from the project. This is something a lot of us don't really think about. The main goal of the livestock project is not winning and making money, but gaining experience and life skills. You can show that you are responsible by adhering to all deadlines, learning about best production practices and encouraging others to learn them, and listening to teachers, parents and county agents. One other major responsibility is to the livestock program itself, ensuring that this program will be around for future generations. It only takes one bad apple to give everyone a bad name. Responsible exhibitors will develop knowledge, skills, and judgment about the desired characteristics of the animal they are showing, and will learn all they can about preparing their animal for show. They can take this a step further and share this knowledge with other younger exhibitors. A key way to demonstrate responsibility to the livestock program is to show loyalty to the program and everyone involved: breeders, family members, other exhibitors, sponsoring organizations, the sponsoring show, and most of all, to consumers. Remember, exhibitors, the future of youth livestock programs is in your hands. You are the key! For more information on Quality Counts, please contact your local Ag Teacher or County Extension Agent, or visit the Quality Counts website at http://qualitycounts.tamu.edu. We hope everyone will come out to the Erath County Junior Livestock Show January 6, 7, 8, and 9 to support our local youth. This year at the livestock show, 4-H is raffling two beautiful quilts, made and donated by Sallie Smith, Secretary of Achievers Extension Education Club. Thanks so much for your generosity, Sallie! The quilts will be on display in area businesses over the next few weeks - call the Extension Office at 965-1460 for locations. Tickets are $1 each or 6 for $5. They are available through 4-H members, as well as at the Extension Office and the livestock show. The drawing will be held at the County show, but you do not need to be present to win. Proceeds from the raffle ticket sales will be donated to United Way, an organization that provides a great deal of financial support to the Erath County 4-H program. Buy a raffle ticket or two...you might be the future owner of a beautiful quilt, and even if you don't win, you have helped United Way support the Erath County 4-H program. We sincerely appreciate the support we have received from all of you over the years! *Robert Scott, Erath Co. Extension Agent |
|||
|
|
|||
|
DFA Board Director Named Chairman of National Dairy Board |
|||
|
Les Hardesty, a Greeley, Colo., dairy farmer and member of the Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. (DFA) Board of Directors, was elected chairman of the National Dairy Board (NDB). He is serving his second three-year term on the board and was twice elected vice chairman. Hardesty, who also is chairman of DFA’s Mountain Area Council, has been a DFA member since its inception and owns and milks 700-cows on two farms situated on 305 acres. He was elected to serve a one-year term as chairman of the National Dairy Board and will have the opportunity to be elected chairman for an additional one-year term. He succeeded NDB Chairman Charles “Woody” Bryant, an Arkansas dairy producer and DFA Board member. “Les is a fine example of the passion and commitment to the industry that many of our members exemplify,” says DFA’s Chief Executive Officer Rick Smith. “We are proud that the industry’s leading promotion and regulatory organizations all have dairy farmer leaders from DFA actively involved.” The 36-member NDB, formed in May 1984 under the authority of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, carries out coordinated promotion and research programs. NDB and the United Dairy Industry Association (UDIA) comprise Dairy Management Inc. (DMI), which oversee the national Dairy Checkoff program. Farmers’ contributions to the program support marketing and advertising campaigns, education programs, and product ingredient and nutrition research that help build demand for U.S. milk and dairy products. Hardesty is enthusiastic about the strategic direction the board is pursuing for the Dairy Checkoff program. Perhaps best known in the past for its image advertising, Hardesty says the checkoff is now more focused on leveraging funds to increase dairy sales by meeting consumers’ unmet demands. For instance, today’s school children are consuming more milk thanks to funding from the Dairy Checkoff program. The New Look of School Milk campaign is offering single-serve milk in plastic containers – as opposed to paper cartons – in more flavors and at colder temperatures. The program is reaching school children at almost 6,000 schools. “By giving our consumers what they want, when they want it and in a convenient package we are building lifelong consumers of dairy,” Hardesty says. Hardesty adds that partnerships with companies, like Pizza Hut, are another important avenue NDB is using to leverage promotion dollars. “Value-added products such as lactose-reduced dairy products, cheeses made for the Hispanic market and nutrient-enhanced yogurts are examples of ways we are adding value to your checkoff program,” he says. “The Dairy Checkoff has unified and focused us like never before,” Hardesty adds. “The opportunity is there to keep that unity, realizing that NDB represents every dairy farmer in these states. And the most important thing is that we have a new strategic direction that is sales driven.” |
|||
|
|
|||
|
All internet content of this site
are Copyright © 2005-2007 TDR Publishing Co. All Rights Reserved. |
In the past few years, some consumers are
leaning toward healthier and safer foods. This includes wanting foods that
are organically produced and/or asking for milk that is either organic or
has no artificial hormones in it. However, do consumers know that there’s
basically no difference between the conventional milk they’ve been
drinking all their lives and what is now labeled rbST-free milk?
