Wichita Food Co-op local growers of organic produce and livestock

By Chris Green - Harris News Service
March 20, 2009

TOPEKA - Dairy producers would be limited in the claims they could make on milk labels under a bill that passed Friday in the Kansas House.

The chamber voted 75-44 in favor of legislation barring dairies from contending that their products are free of artificial bovine growth hormone, also known as rbST or rBGH.

The House's action advances the bill for consideration in the Senate, which declined to act on a similar proposal last year.

This year's debate in the Legislature is the latest front in an ongoing battle over how dairy producers should be allowed to market their products to consumers.

Supporters of the restrictions, including the Kansas Dairy Association, say that consumers are being misled by labels touting hormone-free milk because all dairy products contain bovine growth hormone.

"What they are doing is pressing in the consumer's mind that there is a difference between those two products, which are not different," Rep. Dan Kerschen, R-Garden Plain, said during a debate on the bill Thursday.

Under the bill, dairy labels could still include claims that a product comes from cows that haven't received injections of the growth hormone, which stimulates milk production.

But they would have to also include a disclaimer which says the federal government has found no significant differences between milk from cows supplemented by rbST and milk from cows that have not received the injections.

Plus, dairy plants would have to obtain affidavits to support their claim that the milk comes from cows not injected with the hormone.

The bill's limitations would not apply to agricultural products certified as organic agricultural products by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under its National Organic Program.

Opponents contend that some health-conscious consumers are demanding from cows who don't receive bovine growth hormone injections over concerns about rbST's safety.

"I think there's probably a push to get this through before the real research comes out and says that not only is this harmful to humans but it's harmful to cows," said Rep. Ann Mah, D-Topeka.

Rep. Tony Brown, D-Baldwin City, said he was concerned that the bill would simply further confuse consumers.

He said lawmakers would label products based on a 1993 U.S. Food and Drug Administration review validating rbST's safety, one that was reaffirmed in 1999.

Brown said that subsequent research has triggered concerns that rbST elevates a hormone in cows' milk that is also linked to increased cancer rates in humans.

"What we need to be is careful here and not base consumer information on an FDA ruling that was 10 years ago and does not include the most recent research in this area," Brown said.

But opponents have countered that links between rbST's use on cows and cancer among milk drinkers haven't been proven.

The American Cancer Society notes on its Web site that available evidence documents that rBGH has adverse effects on cows. But the evidence for potential harm to humans from the hormone is inconclusive and the group has no formal position regarding rBGH.

Rep. Shirley Palmer, D-Fort Scott, said she believed the bill's limits would help all dairies by allowing consumers to be confident in the products they're buying.

"There is simply no way to know if that milk is truly what is says it is," Palmer said.

home I about I join I contact us I resources I members only