Tag: milk
Unfair Dairy Pricing Trends
By cgfi | August 14, 2007
Alex Avery
Recently in his Animal and Dairy Sciences blog, Terry Etherton commented on the growing problem related to the pricing of dairy products marketed as “rbST-free” or “organic”. His own observations, he stated, were backed up by recent American Farm Bureau Federation Marketbasket Surveys which showed that conventional dairy products are sold at much lower prices than “rbST-free” and “organic” products. CGFI research has also found that to be the case. In fact, recent grocery store checks conducted in cities such as Seattle, Philadelphia and Minneapolis have shown that milk marketed as “rbST-free” or “organic” is sold at prices as much as 100 percent higher than its conventional competition. Something isn’t right about this situation! Somebody is getting rich off of milk that is labeled one way, but is exactly the same compositionally- and I guarantee you it’s not the dairy farmer who has given up their right to use rbST to earn a living. No…it’s not them. In fact, they will have to work harder now to make the same amount of money they could have if they were producing conventional milk. When are we as consumers going to stand up and say enough is enough? When are we going to put a stop to the fear-mongering that is so prevalent and demand the right to purchase whatever kind of dairy we want to without the irrational fear that we could be endangering our loved ones? Enough is enough.
Posted in CGFI Blog |No Comments »
Why not raw milk?
By cgfi | July 26, 2007
Those of you who regularly read my work know that I believe in conventional milk. It is perfectly safe, perfectly nutritious, and perfectly refreshing. So what is with this push from some groups to make raw milk sales in supermarkets legal? For those of you who don’t know what raw milk is, let me enlighten you. Raw milk is milk that has not been pasteurized. That’s right! Straight from the udder to you! Groups like the Weston A. Price Foundation and the folks behind Joe Mercola are all for this version of milk and regularly push for its mainstream acceptance. Their arguments are that raw milk is more nutritious, of a higher quality and has a better taste than its conventional counterpart because it has not been exposed to the extreme heat that pasteurization brings. Here is my question: Do they not realize that without pasteurization the safety of consuming that milk is seriously questionable? That cow lives on a farm, not in a sterile facility! Where has that udder been; what has it touched; what kinds of bacteria has that milk been exposed to that are not removed because it’s not been pasteurized? It’s one thing to drink the freshly drawn, raw milk on the farm, as my father did when he was growing up on my grandfather’s Michigan dairy farm. But it’s another thing entirely to drink raw milk after it’s spent several days being transported, bottled, and shipped to the store. By then the once-few nasty bacteria will have proliferated into hundreds of thousands or millions, ready to make ill the unsuspecting consumer.
The activists claim “raw” milk kills bacteria, but that’s just plain false. Why do they think so many consumers, especially children, get sick after drinking raw milk? (Actually, they always come up with another scape-goat in those cases: “it was beef or lettuce, not raw milk” they say) There is a reason that the FDA has not allowed the mainstream sale of raw milk: It has repeatedly been proven to sicken consumers and there is zero evidence it is healthier or more nutritious. In fact, recently three Georgia families who consumed raw milk- milk that was only approved for sale as pet food- fell seriously ill with food-borne illnesses as a result. Sadly, many parents seek out raw milk to give to their children – who are most at risk and least aware of the danger. We need to protect the health of children by barring the sale of raw milk. For now, I’ll stick to my clean, “tasteless,” pasteurized milk. At least I know I won’t end up with food-borne illnesses.
Posted in CGFI Blog |No Comments »
Consumers and Farmers Call for End to Misleading Milk Marketing
By cgfi | April 10, 2007
The Center for Global Food Issues submits over 1,000 signatures petitioning regulators and responsible business leaders on false and misleading dairy labels.
(PRWEB) April 10, 2007 — The Center for Global Food Issues (CGFI), a member of the Stop Labeling Lies Coalition, has collected more than 1,000 signatures from dairy producers and consumers demanding action by regulators, retailers and the dairy industry to end misleading and false milk labeling and marketing tactics. According to Alex Avery, Director of Research and Education for the CGFI, claims made by certain dairy packagers and some retailers about milk production methods are purposefully inaccurate and entirely false or misleading.
“Dairy products which are labeled with absence claims regarding antibiotics, hormones or pesticides are misleading consumers and disparaging milk products which do not engage in these marketing tactics. All milk and dairy products naturally contain over 25 hormones required by cows to produce milk. No dairy adds pesticides to milk, and all milk is tested to ensure it is free of antibiotics,” say Avery. “Marketing claims which imply otherwise are irresponsible and in many cases illegal; however, regulators and the dairy industry are turning a blind eye to these damaging practices.”
CGFI’s Milk is Milk consumer, producer and retailer research and education campaign has found a majority of consumers presented with label and advertising claims such as “no added artificial hormones” or “antibiotic-free” or “produced without toxic pesticides” clearly form beliefs that milk with these labels is different, of superior quality, and/or healthier. Certain retailers and dairy packagers compound this problem with disparaging in-store displays and uninformed dairy case managers who give false information about milk safety and quality.
Hormone claims are particularly damaging to consumer perceptions - influencing purchased decisions by as much as 68 percent in some surveys. All milk naturally contains hormones; no hormones (other than Vitamin D3 - a steroid hormone) are added to milk. The protein growth hormone, known as bST or bGH, is also naturally found in all milk. According to the American Medical Association, American Veterinary Medical Association, and the World Health Organization milk from cows receiving the supplemental protein growth hormone known as rbST is identical to milk from all other cows. According to these and the dozens of other science, academic and regulatory organizations which have extensively reviewed this issue, the dairy products from cows which receive this supplement to help them efficiently produce more milk is the same. These groups also find bST supplemented cows are as healthy as or healthier than those which do not get these supplements. Similarly, extensive peer reviewed academic research shows organic milk to be identical to non-organic, conventionally produced milk.
The petition, which has been signed by concerned consumers and diary farmers from all across the country, is aimed at letting government officials and dairy processors know that marketing milk by using absence claims is causing serious and irreversible economic harm to dairy farmers and consumers alike. According to the petition, farmers and food processors should have the right to use safe and approved production methods (including organic manuring practices, approved conventional crop protection methods or modern biotechnology) to produce food without having their products disparaged as “tainted” or “inferior” by competitors through false or misleading absence claims by competitors.
Additionally, the petition argues that consumers should have access to useful, truthful and non-misleading food safety, ingredient and nutritional information to help them make informed decisions that will impact the health and well-being of their families. Consumers who seek products using certain production methods should also have access to accurate and verifiably truthful information which allows them to make informed purchase decisions.
Avery is quick to remind concerned consumers that these labeling tactics are harmful to everyone except dairy marketing interests which charge significant premiums for milk making misleading absence claims. “These fear profiteering processors are banking on the fact that consumers believe organic and other niche-marketed “organic lite” milk is safer and healthier for them, and that some are willing to pay significant premiums for this false belief. Sadly, others who cannot afford the 50 to 200 percent premiums often turn away from milk altogether seeking other less nutritious beverage products for their families.’”
To see the full petition and signatures, please visit Stop Labeling Lies petition page.
Resources: http://www.milkismilk.com/
http://www.stoplabelinglies.com/
www.cgfi.org
Contact:
Alex Avery
Center for Global Food Issues
540-337-6354
Posted in CGFI Blog |No Comments »