Bill would change milk labeling rules in Missouri

Mar 23, 2008 - McClatchy Tribune Business News
Author: Clinton Thomas

Leroy Shatto likes to tell people how his milk is different.

Some state lawmakers would like him to stop. Both the Missouri and Kansas legislatures will review legislation this session that could place new regulations on the dairy industry. But the debate won't focus on what producers like Mr. Shatto put in their bottles. It's what they put on their bottles.

Specifically, the bills would not allow dairy companies to label products as coming from animals that are not treated with artificial growth hormones. "I should be able to tell my customers that we do not treat our cows," Mr. Shatto said. "A lot of my customers -- probably most of my customers -- want milk that doesn't have anything extra." The Food and Drug Administration states that "No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBGH-treated and non rBGH-treated cows." Some consumers remain skeptical of the FDA's findings and demand milk from cows that have not received hormone treatment.

"It's my choice, whether it's healthier or not," Karen Schaefer said as she grabbed two bottles of Shatto milk from the dairy case. "If they don't use the hormones, they should be allowed to say that." Shatto Milk Co., based near Osborn, Mo., appeals to customers like Ms. Schaefer with the phrase "No growth hormones used" on the front of its bottles in small letters near the bottom. Shatto bottles carry the FDA statement about growth hormones on the back, but that's not enough for some lawmakers. Missouri bills HB 2283 and SB 1279 would ban hormone labeling altogether, while Kansas bill SB 595 would require that the hormone label and FDA statement appear on the same side of the bottle.

Either way, Shatto's glass bottles would have to be replaced.

"That's what scares the devil out of me," Mr. Shatto said. "If they made me get rid of all my bottles and start over, it would probably put me out of business." Fritz Hegeman, who operates a dairy near Cosby, Mo., supports the bills. He has used hormones on his farm in the past, but stopped Dec. 1 when his dairy cooperative, Dairy Farmers of America, announced its shift away from hormone treatment. Mr. Hegeman said his cows now produce 10 to 12 percent less milk, and that decreased production could drive up milk prices for consumers. Mr. Hegeman also said labels can be misleading for shoppers.

Hormone treatment often isn't the only issue. Many niche companies now label their milk as "free of antibiotics," even though all milk is free of antibiotics and has been for years, according to Mr. Hegeman. He estimated that milk is tested for antibiotics about 30 times in the process of taking the product from the cow to the kitchen. "In saying their milk doesn't contain something, they are implying that other products do, which often isn't the case," Mr. Hegeman said. Milk from Dairy Farmers of America serves an example. The group produces nearly a third of the nation's supply of fresh milk -- all of it without added growth hormones -- with no guarantee that the companies who sell it at the retail level will give it non-growth hormone label.

Larger companies have started to add the labels in response to competition from smaller dairies like Shatto. The store brand milk at Hy-Vee, the only store in St. Joseph to carry Shatto products, has carried a "no added hormones" label since Feb. 1. Hy-Vee store director Brad McAnally said food labels in general have become too liberal with their claims. Many terms like all-natural or farm fresh are relative, with few or no regulations on how they can be used. The term "organic" isn't much clearer, as rules for the term are still emerging as small farms battle large corporations over what characteristics food must have to warrant the term.

"We're not going to put that on our labels because the legislation could change tomorrow," Mr. McAnally said. Agribusiness reporter Clinton Thomas can be reached at clintonthomas@npgco.com.