Last year, Ohio passed legislation through an emergency rule to restrict "artificial growth hormone-free" and “rbGH-free” dairy labels unless producers include what we believe to be a misleading disclaimer on milk labels. This disclaimer language has never been required by the FDA, and should not be required in Ohio.

Although a court ruled in favor of the Ohio Department of Agriculture in a lawsuit brought by the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the Organic Trade Association (OTA), both IDFA and OTA are appealing that decision. Rather than waste state resources defending this unnecessary bill in litigation, Governor Strickland should simply rescind it.

Ultimately, the rules for labels about rBGH use could be so strict that dairies might leave the information off their label all together, leaving consumers in the dark about how their milk has been produced. At a time when more and more dairies are going rbGH-free in response to consumer demand, Ohio seems to be moving in the opposite direction. In fact, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, in one of her last acts before becoming U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, vetoed a bill calling for dairy labeling rules similar to Ohio’s.

Consumers want more information about the foods we buy and feed to our families – not less. These types of labels are not “misleading,” they fill an important gap in knowledge about how our food is produced. You have a right to know about the origins of your food, and producers have a right to tell you.

Contact Governor Strickland today and urge him to rescind this unnecessary bill. Please also call the Governor’s office after you send your email at (614) 466-3555. Or download your letter and fax it to (614) 466-9354

Dear [ Decision Maker ] ,

Governor Ted Strickland Governor's Office Riffe Center, 30th Flr. 77 South High St. Columbus, OH 43215-6108

Phone: (614) 466-3555 Fax: (614) 466-9354

Dear Governor Strickland,

I am writing to ask you to rescind the emergency rule on dairy labeling in Ohio, approved in May 2008, that would restrict labels that refer to milk that comes from cows not treated with a synthetic bovine growth hormone (known as rbGH).

Although a court ruled in favor of the Ohio Department of Agriculture, in a lawsuit brought by the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the Organic Trade Association (OTA), both IDFA and OTA are appealing that decision. In addition, similar legislation/regulations, which were being considered in other states, have all failed.

As an Ohio citizen, I feel that the Ohio rule is not sufficiently pro-consumer, restricts free speech rights of dairies and processors and interferes with the smooth functioning of free markets. Defending it against a court appeal, in the present economic climate, is a waste of scarce governmental resources.

Like the majority of consumers, I believe such labels are appropriate, and are not misleading. In October, 2008, a Consumer Reports poll found that some 93 percent agreed that "dairies that produce milk and milk products without artificial growth hormones should be allowed to label their products as being free of these hormones."

It is not misleading to say milk from cows not treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH) is 'rbGH-free.' RbGH is not identical to the naturally produced bGH. Furthermore, research in Europe has clearly shown that antibodies can distinguish between Monsanto's rbGH product and naturally produced bGH. Thus, since rbGH is a synthetic molecule that does not occur in nature, if a cow has not been treated with rbGH then it's impossible for the milk of that cow to contain rbGH. By definition, such milk is 'rbGH-free.' Prohibiting farmers, dairies and processors from making the truthful label claim 'rbGH-free' interferes with their free speech rights under the first Amendment.

In fact, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, in one of her last acts before becoming U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, vetoed a bill calling for dairy labeling rules similar to Ohio's. She gave three key reasons:

The milk labeling provisions negatively impact a dairy producer's ability to inform consumers that milk is from cows not treated with recombinant bovine growth hormone . . . Supporters of the bill claim it's necessary to protect consumers from false or misleading information. Yet there has been overwhelming opposition by consumer groups, small dairy producers and retailers to this proposed legislation. Furthermore, I am concerned that patchwork labeling requirements that differ from state to state will make it too expensive, in an already troubled economy, to provide consumers with information regarding the dairy products they purchase.

I also object to the additional contextual statement ("The FDA has determined that no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-treated and non-rbST-treated cows"). First, the label claim is not necessary as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has explicitly said that it is not required. In a July 27, 1994 letter to the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets, FDA stated "the bottom line is that a contextual statement is not required, that in many instances a statement like 'from cows not treated with rbST' would not be misleading, and in no instance is the specific statement 'No significant difference . . .' required by FDA." Second, there are, in fact, significant differences between milk from cows treated with rbGH and from cows not treated. FDA's own publications have demonstrated that milk from cows treated with rbGH show statistically significant increases of the hormone insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), which has been linked to breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer.?Research has also shown increases in clinical mastitis in cows that have been treated with rbGH compared to untreated cows. The additional antibiotics required to treat these infections can't help but contribute to the overall problem of antibiotic resistance in humans, a major national health problem.

Sincerely,

Campaign Launched:
July 14, 2009