|
Down a dirt road, tucked in rolling fields, John Nutting's farm is a picture of tranquility. A wintry breeze sighs through the forest. Black-and-white
Holsteins chew their cuds in a lazy rhythm. Only the large sign hammered onto a
red barn attests to the defiant mood in Maine dairy country: OUR PLEDGE - NO
ARTIFICIAL HORMONES.
Hormones are a hot issue in these parts. As do at least 85% of Maine's milk
producers, Nutting signs an affidavit each year vowing not to inject his cows
with recombinant bovine somatotropin (RBST), a genetically engineered growth
hormone. "We're proud of the way we farm," says the third-generation
dairyman. "Consumers have the right to know how their milk is made."
Not necessarily. A food fight has erupted in New England between those who would
label their produce as they see fit and those who argue that some of those
labels give customers a false impression. Chief among the latter is Monsanto
Corp., the agrochemical giant that markets RBST and is fighting a rearguard
action to quell consumer resistance to its product.
The St. Louis, Mo., multinational demanded last year that Maine suspend its
official Quality seal, which is granted only to milk from uninjected cows. When
the state refused, Monsanto took another tack, suing one of Maine's leading
dairies in federal court in Boston. The suit charged that Oakhurst Dairy, the
company that buys Nutting's milk, is misleading consumers by advertising a
no-artificial-hormone pledge, implying that its milk is safer and healthier.
"Milk is milk," says Janice Armstrong, Monsanto's director of public
affairs.
That sets the stage for the latest chapter in a battle that has raged for more
than a decade. Critics claim - although studies are inconclusive - that using
synthetic bovine growth hormone could lead to such health problems as premature
puberty or even cancer. But the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) studied the
issue before it approved RBST in 1993, when it reported that tests showed no
significant difference between the milk from treated and untreated cows.
Several groups, including Consumers Union and the Center for Food Safety, say
the tests did in fact reveal worrisome differences and that the FDA incorrectly
interpreted the data. Activists campaigning against genetically modified (GM)
food want the U.S. to ban RBST outright, as Europe and Canada have. As for
Maine, "we would rather be safe than sorry," says assistant attorney
general Francis Ackerman, who is preparing the state's brief to intervene on
Oakhurst's behalf.
Today one-third of U.S. dairy herds are injected with RBST, which stimulates
cows
to produce as much as 15% more milk. Lawsuits over labeling have forced the
repeal of a Vermont hormone-disclosure law and stopped dairies in Illinois and
Texas from touting their milk as RBST-free. Earlier this year the FDA took up
the fight, warning producers in Florida, New York, New Jersey and Minnesota
against using labels that say "no hormones" or
"hormone-free." The agency has said nothing, however, about labels
like Oakhurst's that refer only to farmers avoiding "artificial" or
"synthetic" hormones. Monsanto would like Oakhurst to emulate Ben
& Jerry's and Stonyfield Farm, whose no-synthetic-hormone labels also carry
language noting the FDA's approval of RBST. But Stanley Bennett, whose family
built Oakhurst from a two-horse outfit in 1921 into an $85 million modern
processor, says he won't be "bullied" by the $4.7 billion biotech
behemoth. "We are in the business of marketing milk," he says,
"not Monsanto's drugs."
Is the battle over the milk of Maine about free speech? Or is it about dairies
using scare tactics to sell more product? "Oakhurst's marketing campaign is
based more
on fear than on facts," says Monsanto's Armstrong. Consumer
groups say if farmers can't label their milk as coming from cows free of
artificial hormones, it could set a precedent for challenging such popular
labels as "MSG-free," "no artificial flavors,"
"free-range" and "GM-free." Maine attorney general Steven
Rowe plans to ask Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts to help him fight
Monsanto when the suit goes to trial in January. "We in New England are
into purity," he says. "The FDA may not have a problem with artificial
growth hormones, but many consumers do." That's what farmers like John
Nutting are counting on.
|