These days everyone wants to eat healthier. Whether your doctor has advised you that natural foods like whole grains and organic vegetables are better for you or you have simply discovered this on your own, making smart decisions when buying food can provide you with numerous benefits. Luckily, there are some great resources out there that can help you find organic fresh food and get the products you want to improve their health. However, there are some stores that do not measure up to the national standards for organic foods and obtain their products from sources that are not proven to be organic and sometimes not even fresh. In the health food market, you have to be careful about when purchasing products labeled as “fresh” and “organic,” since oftentimes they may not be as fresh and organic as they seem.

While some grocery retailers will divulge exactly where their foods come from, conforming to national organic standards (as well as exceeding them) in order to earn the trust and repeated business of their customers, others are a bit more under-handed. For instance, Whole Foods has recently been under scrutiny by many consumers, such as those who are in such health related professions like medical billing and coding, and national organizations for their marketing practices and the products they sell. While the popular grocery chain advertises that they have completely organic and natural products for sale, it is not clear if these claims are entirely accurate.

In fact, there are several groups that claim not all of the products found at Whole Foods are organic. Just to make sure everyone is clear on what organic means, the USDA defines <a href=“http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/ofp/ofp.shtml”> organic food </a> as a product that is never sprayed with chemicals or grown in an area where chemicals that increase growth, prevent plant or animal disease or prevent any insect infestation are present. Similarly, the plant life fed to animals must adhere to the same standards.

These opponents to Whole Foods also claim that chemicals are used in the product growth, negating the idea of organic products altogether. Even if the food or animals are organically grown, <a href=“http://www.organicconsumers.org/organic/forbes021105.cfm”> the packaging and advertisement costs are passed on to the customer </a>. Likewise, there are some “natural” products that are not widely available, so Whole Foods takes advantage of this market and strives to provide usual or unique products. The problem is that some of these items are imported from sources that may not use organic and natural processes when creating the product.

Despite this, Whole Foods boasts accessibility to “natural and organic foods” to keep you healthy. The company has even created a major marketing campaign in order to boost their sales, <a href=“http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/products/quality-standards.php”> stating exactly what the consumer wants to hear. Yet do they deliver what people are expecting in their products? As previously mentioned, some foods are not really organic or natural in their growth, although they may be considered Kosher in some religions due to the way they are processed. This leads to the question –does the company know the difference, and more importantly, does the consumer know the difference as well?

If the company is aware of these differences, than they are knowingly deceiving customers to believe that they are purchasing completely organic and natural products. If they are not aware, perhaps they should do more research into where their products are produced. Consumers should always be wary and aware of the when purchasing food, and shopping at a so-called health food store is no exception. Usually, a product’s label will tell you where the product was manufactured or packed, but at some times the seller will replace these labels with their own on order to advertise their own name. This makes shopping difficult for the consumer and is almost equivalent to buying generic, as you can never be sure of where the original product was actually produced.

All of us know that advertising is what draws consumers to a business. However if the advertising is deceptive, consumers will quickly quit patronizing the business if they feel as though they of being taken advantage of through the means of false advertising. So does Whole Food, Inc. use these methods?

A search of the Better Business Bureau did not return any complaints, which may mean that some people were able to find the unique items they desired and were satisfied with their purchases. Yet it is also possible that some customers were reluctant to register a complaint, or they did not know whether the products they purchased were truly organic or chemically enhanced. Whole Foods has had its up and downs in this arena, since there is a fine line between organic and chemically enhanced. Chemically enhanced can mean anything, from something as more significant such as using a spray for predatory insects or more minor such as using a fertilizer for growth. So is Whole Foods at fault for selling these products? It cannot be determined, since most companies are not aware of the products used (or not used) in the production of the items they sell.

However, it should be noted that a company should not advertise claims they cannot back up with pure facts. For example, if the company knows that an insect spray has been used on a product they sell, it should not be advertised as organic or natural. Whole Foods should not deceive the public with claims that lead us all to think we have the foods that we would grow ourselves if we had the means to do it. After all, we are not totally ignorant of marketing practices or the lengths businesses will go to in order to make a sale.

***

*Patricia Walling is a web content designer for several health care related sites in Washington, and self-identifies as a perpetual student of medicine. Most of the time she can be found researching anything and everything related to the field.

For those readers who have been following the news about eggs and salmonella, here is a very informative Op-Ed article written by Dr. Patterson that was published online in the New York Times on August 25.

##

The American food system, and in particular egg producers in Pennsylvania and other states, have made great strides in reducing the risk posed by salmonella enteritidis, to the point where eggs have not been a significant food-safety risk in recent years.

That wasn’t always so. Following a rise in salmonella enteritidis in humans starting around 1970, egg safety became a major concern. In 1990, the U.S. Department of Agriculture traced salmonella enteritidis back to egg farms in the Northeast.

Hens most likely become infected from contaminated environments or from rodents bringing the organism to the birds. While salmonella enteritidis does not typically affect bird health, when a hen has a systemic infection of salmonella, the ovaries, and thus the egg yolks, become contaminated. Contaminated eggs can cause serious illness to people if eggs are not thoroughly cooked.

In response to the increased risk of salmonella, Pennsylvania egg producers, federal and state agriculture departments, Penn State and the University of Pennsylvania in 1992 initiated research to find solutions for salmonella egg contamination. Findings resulted in the establishment of the Pennsylvania Egg Quality Assurance Program, which was the first pre-harvest program in the country based on “hazard analysis of critical control points” to reduce salmonella egg contamination.

In the 18 years since the program began, the percentage of contaminated poultry houses has dropped to 8 percent from 38 percent. In 1992, 26 percent of samples from Pennsylvania hen houses tested positive. Today, that’s down to 1 percent. The risk of exposure from a single egg always was statistically small — just 2.6 per 10,000 eggs from infected flocks tested positive for salmonella in 1992. Today, thanks to the assurance program, that incidence is down more than 50 percent, to 1.2 eggs per 10,000. When Salmonella is found in eggs or poultry houses, eggs are discarded or pasteurized.

The program has been so successful that the Food and Drug Administration in July initiated a national program modeled after it. Had the program been in place earlier, the current outbreak may never have occurred. Now that it is, we can expect to see fewer salmonella outbreaks in American eggs.

By Stephen Budiansky
Published: August 19, 2010

IT’S 42 steps from my back door to the garden that keeps my family supplied nine months of the year with a modest cornucopia of lettuce, beets, spinach, beans, tomatoes, basil, corn, squash, brussels sprouts, the occasional celeriac and, once when I was feeling particularly energetic, a couple of small but undeniable artichokes. You’ll get no argument from me about the pleasures and advantages to the palate and the spirit of eating what’s local, fresh and in season.

But the local food movement now threatens to devolve into another one of those self-indulgent — and self-defeating — do-gooder dogmas. Arbitrary rules, without any real scientific basis, are repeated as gospel by “locavores,” celebrity chefs and mainstream environmental organizations. Words like “sustainability” and “food-miles” are thrown around without any clear understanding of the larger picture of energy and land use.

The result has been all kinds of absurdities. For instance, it is sinful in New York City to buy a tomato grown in a California field because of the energy spent to truck it across the country; it is virtuous to buy one grown in a lavishly heated greenhouse in, say, the Hudson Valley.

The statistics brandished by local-food advocates to support such doctrinaire assertions are always selective, usually misleading and often bogus. This is particularly the case with respect to the energy costs of transporting food. One popular and oft-repeated statistic is that it takes 36 (sometimes it’s 97) calories of fossil fuel energy to bring one calorie of iceberg lettuce from California to the East Coast. That’s an apples and oranges (or maybe apples and rocks) comparison to begin with, because you can’t eat petroleum or burn iceberg lettuce.

It is also an almost complete misrepresentation of reality, as those numbers reflect the entire energy cost of producing lettuce from seed to dinner table, not just transportation. Studies have shown that whether it’s grown in California or Maine, or whether it’s organic or conventional, about 5,000 calories of energy go into one pound of lettuce. Given how efficient trains and tractor-trailers are, shipping a head of lettuce across the country actually adds next to nothing to the total energy bill.

It takes about a tablespoon of diesel fuel to move one pound of freight 3,000 miles by rail; that works out to about 100 calories of energy. If it goes by truck, it’s about 300 calories, still a negligible amount in the overall picture. (For those checking the calculations at home, these are “large calories,” or kilocalories, the units used for food value.) Overall, transportation accounts for about 14 percent of the total energy consumed by the American food system.

Other favorite targets of sustainability advocates include the fertilizers and chemicals used in modern farming. But their share of the food system’s energy use is even lower, about 8 percent.

The real energy hog, it turns out, is not industrial agriculture at all, but you and me. Home preparation and storage account for 32 percent of all energy use in our food system, the largest component by far.

A single 10-mile round trip by car to the grocery store or the farmers’ market will easily eat up about 14,000 calories of fossil fuel energy. Just running your refrigerator for a week consumes 9,000 calories of energy. That assumes it’s one of the latest high-efficiency models; otherwise, you can double that figure. Cooking and running dishwashers, freezers and second or third refrigerators (more than 25 percent of American households have more than one) all add major hits. Indeed, households make up for 22 percent of all the energy expenditures in the United States.

Agriculture, on the other hand, accounts for just 2 percent of our nation’s energy usage; that energy is mainly devoted to running farm machinery and manufacturing fertilizer. In return for that quite modest energy investment, we have fed hundreds of millions of people, liberated tens of millions from backbreaking manual labor and spared hundreds of millions of acres for nature preserves, forests and parks that otherwise would have come under the plow.

Don’t forget the astonishing fact that the total land area of American farms remains almost unchanged from a century ago, at a little under a billion acres, even though those farms now feed three times as many Americans and export more than 10 times as much as they did in 1910.

The best way to make the most of these truly precious resources of land, favorable climates and human labor is to grow lettuce, oranges, wheat, peppers, bananas, whatever, in the places where they grow best and with the most efficient technologies — and then pay the relatively tiny energy cost to get them to market, as we do with every other commodity in the economy. Sometimes that means growing vegetables in your backyard. Sometimes that means buying vegetables grown in California or Costa Rica.

Eating locally grown produce is a fine thing in many ways. But it is not an end in itself, nor is it a virtue in itself. The relative pittance of our energy budget that we spend on modern farming is one of the wisest energy investments we can make, when we honestly look at what it returns to our land, our economy, our environment and our well-being.

When surveys don’t give you the overwhelming result you’re looking for, there’s only one thing left to do — cook your numbers. This was the tactic employed by the Consumers Union (CU), the non-profit publisher of Consumer Reports, after it conducted a poll recently on genetically engineered crops.

The CU was miffed by a USDA draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on GE alfalfa which in the CU’s words, “indicated that consumers and organic farmers don’t care if their organic food is GE contaminated.”

The CU created a poll to refute USDA’s EIS findings, but unfortunately for them, the results fell short of expectations. So apparently they turned the numbers over to the shrewdest and most ruthless manipulator of data they could find — their marketing department.

Consequently, on March 2, the poll results were released with a headline that blared, “Two-thirds of organic food consumers concerned with genetically-engineered contamination.”

Michael Hansen, senior scientist with the CU, declared that the CU poll contradicted USDA’s position, and showed that “consumers care greatly,” about potential GE contamination.

The CU news release went on to say, “Given the popularity of alfalfa sprouts among health-oriented eaters, Consumers Union urges USDA to consider the overwhelming consumer concern before deciding to allow GE alfalfa on the market.”

Closer examination reveals trickery afoot.

To its credit, the CU provided this link to the survey results, Organic Food Poll, perhaps hoping that few people would actually take a peek inside. I did, and discovered that I could use the exact same numbers to arrive at a completely different conclusion.

I began with an assertion in the CU news release that “58 percent of all respondents were extremely concerned, very concerned or somewhat concerned with GE contamination.”

I found that in actuality, only 24 percent of all respondents were in the very concerned and extremely concerned categories, while 34 percent said they were only somewhat concerned. A whopping 41 percent claimed they were not concerned at all. To me, being somewhat concerned is a whole lot closer to being not concerned than it is to being very concerned or extremely concerned. In fact, if I tell a pollster I’m somewhat concerned, I might be saying I don’t much care at all. So my personal take would be that 75 percent were not very concerned or not concerned at all about GE contamination.

As to the CU’s claim that two-thirds of organic consumers were concerned about GE contamination, again it’s a matter of how you crunch the numbers. A surprising 33 percent of those who buy organic products were not concerned about GE contamination and 35 percent were only somewhat concerned. My conclusion therefore would be that 68 percent of organic consumers had very little or no concern about GE contamination.

So there you have it, two steaming plates of statistics, each half-baked to suit the taste du jour — with alfalfa sprouts on the side.

e-mail: erobinson@farmpress.com

The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) released their annual report on global adoption of genetically modified (GM) on February 23, 2010.

An executive summary of Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2009 – The first fourteen  years, 1996 to 2009 presents highlights of the amazing growth in the global adoption of GM crops.  Impressively, GM crops are being readily adopted by developing and developed countries.

Some highlights from the report:

• Small and large farmers in 25 countries planted 134 million hectares (330 million acres) in 2009, an increase of 7 percent or 9 million hectares (22 million acres) over 2008
• In 2009, the number of biotech famers worldwide increased by .07 million to 14.0 million, 90% of those were small and resource-poor farmers in developing countries.
• For the first time, biotech soybean occupied more  than three-quarters of the 90 million hectares of soybean globally, biotech cotton almost half of the 33 million hectares of global cotton, biotech maize over one-quarter of the 158 million hectares of global maize and biotech canola more than one-fifth of the 31 million hectares of global canola
• While 25 countries planted commercialized biotech crops in 2009, an additional 32 countries, totaling 57, have granted regulatory approvals for biotech crops for import for food and feed use, and release into the environment since 1996.

The report from ISAAA also discusses important developments in biotech growth over the past year, including China’s landmark decision last November to issue biosafety certificates for its nationally-developed proprietary Bt rice and phytase maize. The report also delves into the future of biotech, and the need for biotech to help us reach the UN Millennium Goals through investments in research and commercialization of Golden Rice and drought tolerant crops.

“Instead of redesigning the factory farm to suit the animals, they are redesigning the animals to suit the factory farm”
Matthew Scully. The American Conservative, May 23, 2005.

My most memorably painful experience occurred when I was a teenage farm kid that stomped on the end of a pitchfork. My intent was for the handle to swing up and whack my sister in the hand. Alas, she was not the embarrassed teenager who left for our family vacation the next day with a well deserved set of stitches. In the seconds after the handle did its damage, I knew where I was hurting, I knew that it was a rather intense sensation, and I knew that it was not at all pleasant. What I did not know was that these experiences where the result of two different sensory pathways. The first pathway told me that my chin hurt, and badly; the second told me that it was not pleasant (for me at least – my sister was on the ground laughing).

Neuroscientists are beginning to understand how we and our fellow creatures sense pain. Lab mice that have a genetically altered anterior cingulate cortex sense pain and remove themselves from the source of the pain, but apparently are unaware that pain is an unpleasant experience and are less likely to avoid future painful situations. Some apparently believe this a terrific opportunity to produce genetically altered farm animals that have no concept of pain’s unpleasant effect.

Genetic manipulation through selective breeding is nothing new and has often benefited farm animals. In return for milk and meat, animals have been protected from extreme environmental conditions, starvation and predation. Selective breeding has made enormous contributions to society by allowing us to feed a growing population without compromising our environment or the well-being of animals. For example, Ever-Green-View My 1326-ET just completed a new world milk production record with over 8,400 gallons of milk in one year’s time, or nearly 23 gallons per day from a single cow! And she was not “worn out” at the end of the year. In fact, she was classified “Excellent” for her outstanding physical appearance; an honor bestowed on less than 1% of our nation’s Holstein cows.

There are, of course, examples of selective breeding pushing animals too far. A story is told of a well intentioned farmer growing 4,000 free-range turkeys. Unfortunately for the farmer, when it rained his turkeys stood looking into the sky and drowned. This story is held up as an example of how those who believe animal agriculture has gone wrong really have no clue about farming realities, but the opposite is true. Eliminating some of the most basic instincts for survival shows we value their meat, but not their intrinsic worth as turkeys.

The idea of manipulating an animal’s genome to eliminate their pain avoidance instinct is far more sinister than accidentally breeding exceptionally dumb turkeys. It would be an extreme example of “designing the animal to fit the factory farm”. It is not our farmers suggesting this would be a wonderful development at this point, but might they someday be forced to breed such animals just to survive economically?

The premise that this would increase animal welfare because the animals don’t realize they are in pain is absurd. Animals were designed with a pain response for a reason. Eliminating such a basic instinct would prevent them from avoiding future painful situations, and it raises the potential for abuse to new heights. What happens if animal handlers are absolved from any feelings of guilt because they are no longer inflicting pain? My bet is they won’t spend more time petting the farm animals. If it no longer is unpleasant to lie in a stall that has no bedding, will farmers continue to spend limited resources trying to make their animals more comfortable? With “pain free” animals, will we concern ourselves with making sure they are housed in systems that prevent lameness?

I am not suggesting we ignore problems in modern animal agriculture production. The continued demise of the traditional system with animals owned and cared for by a farm family is tragic. This transition has not been good for rural communities or farm animals. Breeding robotic animals that have been redesigned to take minimal notice of a painful situation does not solve these problems or promote more humane animal treatment. It is simply a faster road toward unmitigated animal exploitation. Views of farm animals range from mere economic assets to fellow creatures bestowed with their Maker’s breath of life. If we eliminate the most basic sense that pain is to be avoided, we have no right to claim we care about farm animals for anything beyond how much of a return on assets they can generate.

With so many stories to choose from, it was hard for us to determine the top agricultural biotechnology story of 2009. Therefore, we turned to the Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI) experts and let them choose the top three stories that stood out in terms of their significance and impact on the future of agricultural biotechnology worldwide. CBI experts include the nation’s leading scientists in plant genetics and food science, among other disciplines.

Dr. Norman Borlaug’s Legacy
The loss of Dr. Norman Borlaug, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and father of the Green Revolution, was cited by several experts as the biggest story of 2009 because of his work to alleviate poverty and hunger. In his obituary, The New York Times praised Dr. Borlaug’s advances in plant breeding, which allowed countries like Mexico and India to become food self-sufficient and as a result, saved one billion lives.

According to Dr. Ronald Phillips of the University of Minnesota, “Norman Borlaug was one of the greatest humanitarians to ever have lived and he achieved this through hard work, impeccable ethics, a belief in training, and a vision as to what can improve the human condition.”

Reflecting on Dr. Borlaug’s legacy, Dr. Peggy G. Lemaux of the University of California, Berkeley wrote “far and away the year’s top story is Norman Borlaug. Biotechnology lost a strong and influential voice with his passing. One that cannot be filled by any other shoes.”

China Begins Approval Process for Biotech Rice
Many CBI Experts also chose the recent story about China declaring genetically modified rice safe to produce and consume as one of the year’s most significant ag biotech developments. The Wall Street Journal reported that with this decision the Chinese government takes a “major step toward endorsing the use of biotechnology in the staple food crop of billions of people in Asia.”

According to Dr. Kenneth G. Cassman of the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, “this announcement is a game-changer because China produces about 30% of rice in the world… Therefore, I believe this approval will create an overwhelming pressure to approve biotech crops in most developing nations.”

Dr. Chris Somerville of the University of California, Berkeley also chose China’s announcement as his top story of the year because “it is the official opening of the largest food market in the world to GMO.”

Mapping of the Corn Genome
Other CBI experts suggested that the mapping of the corn genome qualifies as the biggest ag biotech story of the year because of what can be achieved when we understand the genome sequence of this hugely important crop. The Washington Post wrote, “…many agronomists hope the information buried in corn’s 32,000 genes and 2.3 billion letters of DNA may help sustain the century-long improvement in yield and hardiness into an era of climate change and, possibly, food shortage.”

Dr. Larry Heatherly of the University of Tennessee chose the mapping of the corn genome as the story of the year because “this achievement will lead to new/improved quality traits, enhanced genetic pest resistance, and increased production with fewer inputs resulting in lower cost of production and a more sustainable economic production system.”

Agricultural Biotechnology Makes Headlines
Other agricultural biotechnology stories made headlines during 2009. These stories include Bill Gates’ speech endorsing the expansion of technology in agriculture at the 2009 World Food Prize Symposium, and the increased acceptance and approval of biotechnology crops due to the pressures of growing population and climate change.

Below are quotes from national opinion leaders about the benefits of agricultural biotechnology from 2009.

_________________________________________

“Genetically modified crops are proving to be an unmitigated environmental miracle… Within a decade there may be crops that are no-till, insect-resistant, omega-3-enriched, drought-tolerant, salt-tolerant and nitrogen-efficient. If they boost yields, then the 21st century will see more and more people better and better fed from less and less land.”

— Matt Ridley, The Economist, The World in 2010 Issue

_________________________________________

“We have global warming problems, we have health problems. And many – not all, by any means – solutions can be found in agricultural biotechnology.”

— Michael Specter, author of Denialism and New Yorker reporter

_________________________________________

“We believe that biotechnology has a critical role to play in increasing agricultural productivity, particularly in light of climate change. We also believe it can help to improve the nutritional value of staple foods.”

— Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

What are greenhouse gases?

Naturally occurring greenhouse gases consist of water vapor (H₂O), carbon dioxide (CO₂)₎, methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O) and ozone (O₃). Gases produced from industrial activities include chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons.

What are the primary sources of naturally occurring greenhouse gases?

Carbon dioxide makes up 84.6% of all emissions. The major sources of CO₂ emissions are fossil fuel combustion, iron and steel production, cement manufacturing and municipal solid waste combustion. In the United States in 2004, fuel combustion accounted for 95% of CO₂ emissions.

Methane makes up 7.9% of all emissions. The major sources include landfills, natural gas systems, enteric fermentation (dairy and beef cattle primarily), and coal mining.

Nitrous oxide makes up 5.5% of all emissions. The major sources include agricultural soil management and mobile combustion.

How does agriculture contribute to greenhouse gases?

Agriculture contributes approximately 6-7% of the total U. S. greenhouse gas emissions. Methane from enteric fermentation represents 20% and manure management 7% of the total CH₄ emitted. Ruminants (beef, dairy, goats, sheep) are the main contributors to enteric fermentation. Because of the ruminant animal’s unique digestive system that includes a microbial fermentation vat, “the rumen”, methane is produced as a byproduct which is exhaled or belched by the animal. Dietary strategies that focus on forage quality and management practices that improve animal growth and production can reduce the amount of methane produced. From 1990 to 2004, emissions from enteric fermentation have decreased due mostly to reduced beef and dairy cattle numbers.

Manure management can produce both CH₄ and N₂O. Methane is produced when manure decomposes without oxygen present. Nitrous oxide is produced as part of the nitrogen cycle in livestock manure and contributes very little to emissions. There are manure management systems, i.e. digesters, which can utilize the methane to generate power not only on the farm but off farm as well. As farm technology advances, more options will be available to producers to harness methane.

Agricultural soils contribute the majority of N₂O emissions in the U.S. Nitrous oxide is produced naturally in soils via a microbial process. Direct and indirect pathways for N₂O emissions include commercial fertilizer application, managed application of livestock and poultry waste, manure deposition from grazing animals, sewage sludge, nitrogen fixing crops and retention of crop residues. There are year to year fluctuations in emissions due to variation in weather, use of synthetic fertilizer and crop production.

Should agriculture be concerned?

All industries, including agriculture should be concerned about how our day to day activities affect the environment. Resources are being committed to research the development of on-farm practices that can help minimize not only greenhouse gases, but ammonia and fine particulates. How agriculture contributes to greenhouse gas emissions should be kept in perspective relative to other industries and how they contribute to the big picture, not only nationally but globally.

Reference: INVENTORY OF U.S. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND SINKS: 1990-2004. April 2006. USEPA #430-R-06-002

Stanford, Calif. – MILK occupies a special place in our lives and language. It has been dubbed natures most perfect food, and we speak sentimentally of the land of milk and honey and the milk of human kindness.

But things are turning sour for consumers of milk. The average price of a gallon of milk nationwide is up 37 cents since January, to $3.47. Strong demand and limited ability to increase production quickly are expected to increase prices more, and experts have speculated that the price per gallon could reach a record $5 by years end. High feed costs associated with the ramping up of American corn-based ethanol production are making it difficult to produce more milk.

Worldwide, prices are also at historically high levels. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organizations price index of traded dairy products has risen 46 percent since last November.

One way to ease the shortage and lower the prices is to take greater advantage of a proven 13-year-old biological technology that stimulates milk production in dairy cows a protein called recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST), or bovine growth hormone. The protein, produced naturally by a cows pituitary, is one of the substances that control its milk production. It can be made in large quantities with gene-splicing (recombinant DNA) techniques. The gene-spliced and natural versions are identical.

Bad-faith efforts by biotechnology opponents to portray rbST as untested or harmful, and to discourage its use, keep society from taking full advantage of a safe and useful product. The opponents limited success is keeping the price of milk unnecessarily high.

When rbST is injected into cows, their digestive systems become more efficient at converting feed to milk. It induces the average cow, which produces about eight gallons of milk each day, to make nearly a gallon more. More feed, water, barn space and grazing land are devoted to milk production, rather than other aspects of bovine metabolism, so that you get seven cows worth of milk from six.

This may not seem like a big deal, but when applied widely the effects are profound. For every million cows treated with rbST each year, 6.6 billion gallons of water (enough to supply 26,000 homes) are conserved, according to Monsanto, which makes rbST. With much of the nation enduring a drought and many cities in the West experiencing water shortages, this is a significant benefit.

The amount of animal feed consumed each year by those million rbST-supplemented cows is reduced by more than three billion pounds. This helps to keep the lid on corn prices, even as much of the nations corn harvest is diverted to producing ethanol for cars. And the amount of land required to raise the cattle and grow their food is reduced by more than 417 square miles.

At the same time, more than 5.5 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel (enough to power 8,800 homes) are saved, greenhouse gas emissions are lowered by 30,000 metric tons (because fewer cows means less methane produced by bovine intestinal tracts), and manure production is decreased by about 3.6 million tons, reducing the chances of runoff getting into waterways and groundwater.

Comprehensive studies by academics and government regulatory agencies around the world have found no differences in the composition of milk or meat from rbST-supplemented cows.

And consumers are apparently happy to drink milk from supplemented cows, in spite of efforts by biotechnology opponents to bamboozle milk processors and retailers into believing that consumers don’t want it. In various surveys to ascertain the factors that influence consumers milk purchasing decisions, the predominant considerations have been: price (80 percent to 99 percent), freshness (60 percent to 97 percent), brand loyalty (30 percent to 60 percent) and a claim of organic (1 percent to 4 percent). Only the organic claim is even remotely related to rbST supplementation. Unless prompted, the consumers surveyed didn’t mention rbST as a concern.

Some milk suppliers and food stores have increased the price of milk labeled rbST-free, even though it is indistinguishable from supplemented milk, and offer only this more expensive option, pre-empting consumers ability to choose on the basis of price.

Activists purely speculative concerns about rbST ranging from the destruction of small family farms to the risk of cancer have proven baseless. Before approval by the Food and Drug Administration, rbST underwent the longest and most comprehensive regulatory review of any veterinary product in history. Three years before the F.D.A. approved the marketing of milk from supplemented cows, its scientists, in an article published in the journal Science, summarized more than 120 studies showing that rbST poses no risk to human health.

Their conclusion was affirmed over the next several years by additional scientific reviews conducted by the National Institutes of Health, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the drug-regulatory agencies of Britain, Canada and the European Union, and by an issues audit done by the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general. These reviews noted that traces of bST are found in milk from all cows, supplemented or not. They also pointed out that, like other proteins, rbST is digested in the human gut. Moreover, even if it is injected into the human bloodstream, it has no biological activity.

Largely as a result of bullying by several members of Congress, the F.D.A.s review of rbST took nine years, while the evaluation of an almost identical product for injection into growth hormone-deficient children had taken a mere 18 months.

Cynical activists have unfairly stigmatized a scientifically proven product that has consistently delivered economic and environmental benefits to dairy farmers and consumers. In a more rational world, they would embrace and enlightened consumers would demand milk with a label that boasted, A Proud Product of rbST-Supplemented Cows.

Henry I. Miller, a doctor and fellow at the Hoover Institution, headed the Food and Drug Administrations Office of Biotechnology from 1989 to 1993. He is the co-author, most recently, of The Frankenfood Myth.

Industry is heading down a slippery slope

By SHERRY BUNTING
Special for Farmshine

BROWNSTOWN, Pa. – The dairy industry is heading down a slippery slope. For those who may have thought the “rbST-free” milk labeling issue was an isolated concern: think again.

A small milk bottler in Washington state recently initiated a new production tool into the “free of” discussion: ionophores. According to news bulletins, the bottled milk label for Sno-Fresh Dairy now reads, “All Natural, Farm Fresh. Free of Antibiotics, Rumensin, rBST.”

Wow! What a scientific breakthrough! Milk, that is free of all these things? How’d they do that? Must be good stuff. The best.

Get the big truck for that load of manure! My good ‘ole standard, conventional, local store brand doesn’t contain any of those things either. Guaranteed.

Maybe some dairy farmers are not concerned about “rbST-free” milk labeling. Maybe the industry has come to accept and disregard claims of milk that is “free of antibiotics.” Maybe we view misleading labels as a “market niche” of little concern to our choices on the farm. Or maybe, we simply console ourselves with the thought that most consumers are reasonable enough to know that ALL MILK is free of antibiotics… free of rbST… free of “you name the production tool.” Just because this last statement is true in reality, doesn’t mean it is “true” in the minds of consumers.

Just because a dairy farmer treats a sick cow with antibiotics or chooses to use FDA-approved rbST for production management or chooses to supplement with an FDA-approved ionophore for improved feed efficiency, doesn’t mean the milk contains any of these things. I would have to say that most consumers are not aware of this simple truth.

Milk has been safety-tested for decades. This is something consumers don’t have conscious awareness of anymore: it is behind the scenes and taken for granted. From a milk-regulating standpoint, misleading labels that raise concern about the safety of “conventional” milk are a slap-in-the-face. All milk goes through a litany of tests, and milk safety regulators take their jobs very seriously.

Do consumers even realize that milk containing antibiotics, can’t be sold under any label? It is discarded. Do they realize that dairy farmers hold the milk from antibiotic-treated cows, out of the tank? Do they know dairy farmers can’t sell milk from treated cows until after the prescribed withdrawal period, and if they do accidentally milk a treated cow in the line, the whole tank of milk is thrown away? That’s already the law for all milk. The safeguards and testing are already in place for all milk.

Here’s a provocative thought: What’s to stop ALL MILK labels from stating: “free of antibiotics, rbST, etc.?” Since the milk doesn’t contain these items even if they are used in managing the herd, can’t all labels – including conventional milk labels – simply state that the milk doesn’t contain these things? Seems reasonable to me.

When I explain to my ag-illiterate friends and acquaintances, who question me about milk or beef from time to time, they end up seeing the reason in my argument. Trouble is, most consumers don’t ask the right people, or they don’t ask anyone at all. They read a label and form their own conclusions.

Concerning the “free of” milk labels on today’s market… I make this humble observation. What are dairy farmers supposed to do? Volatile and prolonged periods of low milk prices… The government-subsidized business of producing fuel from corn, sending grain prices skyward… Energy costs to run a dairy and grow feeds and forages, going through the roof… A mixed up, largely incomprehensible, regulated milk marketing system with price accuracy in question… Increasing pressures from costly environmental regulations and nuisance lawsuits…

In the face of very tight margins, some producers make the choice to adopt organic methods of production, and there is a niche for this product. Others remain conventional and make the choice to adopt available and approved production tools to get better feed efficiency (read more milk per pound of feed), to get better cow efficiency (read more milk per cow), to treat a sick cow that shows a good chance of recovery (read keep my good cow if the treatment will make her better).

Every producer should have this choice. And such choices are no doubt made after penciling out the return, in an effort to run a profitable dairy farm.

This is not an organic versus conventional debate. Misleading labels are a concern because they promote the chipping away of producer choices without commensurate dollars returned and without thinking about the long term consequences for food production. Unless the Food and Drug Administration and/or Federal Trade Commission clarify labeling guidelines to stop deceptive and often disparaging labels and advertising, I believe we will see a steady increase in approved technologies, coming under fire due to marketing ploys and misleading labels.

I know the mantra: the customer is king; the customer is always right; give the customers what they want. But honestly, do consumers today even know what they want? Do they have any kind of real-world perspective on this? Or is the animal rights activist agenda telling them – ever so subtly and dishonestly – what they want? They have certainly targeted a busy bunch of people. Dairy farmers are way too busy on the farm to effectively organize against the subtle attack that lies beneath the surface of the deceptive labeling issue.

But make no mistake, the labeling issues are frustrating to the people who know better: the people who toil to produce food for a largely ungrateful nation; the scientists who research and develop the means for better production from fewer resources.

In today’s marketing environment, it appears that some people think it is okay to use confusion as a marketing tool. And why not? Evidently, it pays. Apparently, there are enough affluent people in this country, who are willing to pay for simple un-truths and half-truths.

In my opinion, the way some of these “free of” labels are worded is a disgrace. It is also foolish. Are we – as a society – really this gullible? Guess so.