Dairy farmers in Kansas have worked with their legislators to propose a bill that would stop misleading labels on dairy products in that state. Kansas follows the lead of Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Jersey who have all debated the same issue.
A proposed bill in Topeka would stop dairy companies from labeling milk from cows that are given certain hormones. The proposed legislation says it would be illegal to label any agricultural product that compares its quality with other products in a “misleading” way.
Carrol Campbell’s Cowley County dairy farm has been in his family since 1935.
“When I go to the dairy case and I see my product right next to a big splash it indicates somehow that my product is inferior, quite frankly I’m offended,” said Campbell.
Campbell’s been using RBST for years saying it supplements natural hormones in the cow leading to a gallon more of milk each day.
“Research by third parties says there’s no question that it’s safe and so I feed it to my family. You know would I if it was dangerous? I wouldn’t do that,” said Campbell.
That’s why he’s pushing for the bill, saying the labeling is simply a marketing ploy.
3 Comments on “Kansas Joins in the Debate”
The honest thing to do is to declare whether the cows producing the milk in question have been treated with rBGH. There are, despite the FDA’s glib approval, some real questions about the effect of the metabolite IGF on humans who drink the milk, and there is concern among consumers about the effect of rBGH on the health of the cows and the increased use of antibiotics which rBGH incurs. People will be outraged if they cannot make the choice. Even Pennsylvania, where such a bill was passed, has rescinded that decision. This is not a marketing ploy. There is a great difference in the life of a treated cow as compared with an untreated cow.
The honest thing to do is to declare whether the cows producing the milk in question have been treated with rBGH. There are, despite the FDA’s glib approval, some real questions about the effect of the metabolite IGF on humans who drink the milk, and there is concern among consumers about the effect of rBGH on the health of the cows and the increased use of antibiotics which rBGH incurs. People will be outraged if they cannot make the choice. Even Pennsylvania, where such a bill was passed, has rescinded that decision. This is not a marketing ploy. There is a great difference in the life of a treated cow as compared with an untreated cow.
The honest thing to do is to declare whether the cows producing the milk in question have been treated with rBGH. There are, despite the FDA’s glib approval, some real questions about the effect of the metabolite IGF on humans who drink the milk, and there is concern among consumers about the effect of rBGH on the health of the cows and the increased use of antibiotics which rBGH incurs. People will be outraged if they cannot make the choice. Even Pennsylvania, where such a bill was passed, has rescinded that decision. This is not a marketing ploy. There is a great difference in the life of a treated cow as compared with an untreated cow.