N.Y. seeking standard on milk labels

WASHINGTON — Agriculture commissioners from New York, Vermont and Pennsylvania have joined the resistance to milk labels that shun cow growth hormones.

The three states' agriculture chiefs called on the Bush administration to crack down on labels that officials consider false or misleading, including claims that milk is "hormone-free." And their action in part bears the fingerprints of the one company that makes cow growth hormone, the Monsanto Co.

Writing on behalf of a three-state, 37-member "Dairy Leadership Team" that includes a Monsanto representative, the officials urged the FDA to resolve outstanding issues about milk labels and to apply a national standard for what claims may be made.

The officials did not make any specific recommendation, only citing inconsistency around the country. But Pennsylvania recently tried to ban all references to the synthetic hormone on labels in that state, and New York Farm Bureau — which also is represented on the Dairy Leadership Team — has asked the FDA to do the same nationally.

"Since its FDA approval in November 1993, the use of a recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) to increase dairy production has raised many questions regarding the accuracy of dairy product labeling," the commissioners wrote to the FDA and to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission on March 18.

"Unfortunately, our producers and consumers continue to express concern that the FDA guidelines are not clear enough, or are not being followed, and that some labels for milk are confusing, and in some cases misleading regarding claims such as 'hormone-free,' 'antibiotic-free,' or 'pesticide-free,'" they wrote.

The Dairy Leadership Team, created in 2006, includes Jeff Harding of Monsanto Dairy, as well as New York Farm Bureau President John Lincoln and New York Agriculture Commissioner Patrick Hooker, who formerly was a New York Farm Bureau lobbyist under Mr. Lincoln's leadership. Nine members are from New York.

Other members include farmers, agriculture promotion officials, milk processors and representatives of universities.

So far, the FDA has declined to become further involved in the labeling issue, saying its guidelines already are clear: Packagers of milk and dairy products can claim that milk comes from cows not treated with the synthetic hormone, but they may not suggest the milk is hormone-free or nutritionally superior.

Scientists say milk generally contains traces of hormones, either naturally occurring or synthetic. And while tests have been developed to tell the difference between the two, they are not approved for use in the United States, and the government says there is no significant difference in the milk.

There can be, however, a significant difference in the price of milk made with or without the synthetic hormone, and that is fueling some opposition among farmers who believe they are not receiving a fair share of the price. While some farmers have been able to negotiate higher prices for milk made without rBST, others complain that price hikes in the supermarket far outstrip farmers' gains.

The FDA put its guidelines in place when it approved Monsanto's application to sell the hormone under the brand name Posilac. The drug boosts milk production but has not been the bonanza the company might have expected, and sales of milk made without it have surged in the last few years.

Even past critics of the anti-Posilac movement, including major dairy processors and supermarkets, have turned around and embraced the non-rBST concept. Kraft Foods recently announced it would make a line of cheese using non-rBST milk, and big retailers such as Wal-Mart and Kroger's have expanded their offerings of milk made without synthetic hormones.

Sales of organic milk, which is made without rBST and meets other guidelines as well, also have gained, according to Horizon Organics, a unit of Dean Foods that leads that part of the industry.

As that business has thrived, Monsanto has applied more pressure on states and retailers to turn away from non-rBST labeled milk. The company asked the FDA for tougher enforcement of its guidelines, including requiring packagers to print disclaimers in comparable type informing consumers that the FDA finds no significant difference in milk from treated or untreated cows.