Missouri rBGH Labeling Under Attack, AGAIN...

Please pass this on to your family and friends in Missouri...

Dairy Labeling - Missouri House Bill HB 2283 has hearing on 4-1-08


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Burnetts Heritage Farms
Date: Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Subject: Dairy Labeling Bill HB2283 has hearing on 4-1-08
To: KC Food Circle Bulletin Board <KCFC-Bulletin-Board@googlegroups.com>

House Bill 2283 has been scheduled for a hearing with the Special Committee on Agri-Business for April 1, 2008 at 8:00am in Hearing Room #4 of the State Capitol Building
. This bill would be VERY detrimental to small dairy producers in the state who advertise their milk as hormone free, rBgh free or by other composition standards. It would prevent consumers from knowing what is used to produce their milk.

This bill must be stopped! Opponents to this bill should be at the
hearing, if they at all can. Those who would like to testify in person or through written submission should contact the Committee Chair. All opponents to this bill should contact the Committee Members and express their views on this very destructive bill. At this late date, phone calls are best, but emails are still very effective.

The Committee Contact information is below, with the exact wording of the changes the bill would make to the current dairy labeling laws in Missouri.

###

196.075. 1. A food shall be deemed to be misbranded:...
(12) For all dairy products except those produced through organic farming as defined by rules promulgated under section 261.110, RSMo:
(a) A compositional claim that cannot be confirmed through laboratory analysis; or
(b) A compositional or production-related claim that is supported solely by sworn statements, affidavits, or testimonials; or
(c) If the label contains a statement which is false or
misleading; or
(d) If the label contains the following production statement: "this milk is from cows not supplemented with rbST", or a substantially equivalent claim; or
(e) If the label makes any claims regarding the composition of milk, as opposed to the manner in which milk is produced, such as "No Hormone", "Hormone Free", "rbST Free", "rbGH Free", and "bST Free". The department of agriculture shall not permit such statements on any dairy product labels; or
(f) A statement may be considered false and misleading if
it indicates the absence of a compound not permitted by the United States Food and Drug Administration to be present in any dairy product.

###


Special Committee on Agri-Business Members:


Munzlinger, Brian, Chair 573-751-7985
brian.munzlinger@house.mo.gov

Fisher, Barney Joe, Vice Chair 573-751-5388 barney.fisher@house.mo.gov

Aull, Joe 573-751-2204 joe.aull@house.mo.gov

Guest, Jim 573-751-0246 jim.guest@house.mo.gov

Hobbs, Steve 573-751-9458 steve.hobbs@house.mo.gov

Kelly, Van 573-751-2205 van.kelly@house.mo.gov

Rucker, Martin T. 573-751-9460 martin.rucker@house.mo.gov

Swinger, Terry 573-751-2264 terry.swinger@house.mo.gov

Thomson, Mike 573-751-9465 mike.thomson@house.mo.gov

Todd, Tom 573-751-4095 tom.todd@house.mo.gov


--~--~---------~--~----~-----

Please review our KCFC Copyright and Fair Use Policies page before reposting articles protected by copyright. As a rule, you should always cite your sources.

###

You received this forwarded message because someone who cares is subscribed to the Google Group "KC Food Circle Bulletin Board"

To post to this group, send email to KCFC-Bulletin-Board@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/KCFC-Bulletin-Board?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---


Missouri Residents, see also:
http://ga3.org/campaign/MO_rBGH
for their current write-in campaign
and / or
The Food and Water Watch write-in campaign


and


Ralph Tomlinson thought you would be
interested in the following article from
www.globeandmail.com,
Canada's leading source for online news:


"Wal-Mart move 'tipping point' for non-hormone milk"


Organic food proponents will remember Thursday as the day the ground shifted.Giant food retailer Wal-Mart Stores Inc. announced that its store brand milk in the United States will now come exclusively from cows not treated with artificial growth hormones.

Note from Ralph Tomlinson:
Walmart has slapped down Monsanto.

###

reportonbusiness.com

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080322.RMILK22/EmailTPStory/Business

RETAIL: FOOD

Wal-Mart move 'tipping point' for non-hormone milk

JANET MCFARLAND

March 22, 2008

Organic food proponents will remember Thursday as the day the ground shifted.

Giant food retailer Wal-Mart Stores Inc. announced that its store brand milk in the United States will now come exclusively from cows not treated with artificial growth hormones.

The move sends a powerful signal to food manufacturers about the growing mainstream demand for health food products. With Wal-Mart already the largest retailer of organic milk in the U.S., it has been clear that consumers interested in greener food products are no longer the narrow group of back-to-the-earth types and wealthy urban yuppies.

"It's reached the tipping point," said Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumers Association in the U.S., who has spent years campaigning against the use of hormones designed to boost milk production by up to 15 per cent in dairy cows.

"Even Wal-Mart's customers are demanding milk free from genetically engineered hormones."

Similar demands are growing in Canada, with mainstream grocery retailers like Loblaw Cos. Ltd. introducing reams of new products to meet mainstream demands for organic and "green" foods. Canada, however, banned artificial growth hormones for dairy cows in 1998, so is not affected by the milk changes sweeping the United States.

"I think things are accelerating now and people are getting more health conscious and are getting more conscious about the connection between their personal health and the health of the environment," Mr. Cummins said.

Grocery chain Kroger Co., with 2,500 stores in the U.S., began last month selling only milk produced without the use of hormones like recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST). Safeway Inc., with more than 1,700 stores, has switched its in-store brands to non-rBST milk, though it also sells other brands produced from cows given the hormone. And starting in January, Starbucks Corp. has only used non-rBST milk in its stores.

As the largest grocery retailer in the United States with more than 4,000 locations, however, Wal-Mart was the "big get" for consumer advocates.

The retailer said Thursday that its change was prompted by consumer demands. "Many Wal-Mart customers have expressed a desire for milk choices," the company's release said. The change means Wal-Mart's Great Value store brand milk will be rBST-free, as will milk offered at the company's Sam's Club warehouse locations.

"We've listened to customers and are pleased that our suppliers are helping us offer Great Value milk from cows that are not treated with rBST," said Wal-Mart general merchandise manager Pam Kohn.

In the U.S., non-rBST milk has become a cheaper alternative to milk that is fully organic. Mr. Cummins said it appeals to many consumers who want to avoid the hormones but are unwilling to pay the far larger premium for organic milk. "When you look at all the surveys of consumer attitudes about food safety, hormones consistently rank way up there, along with pesticides," he said.

Most dairy farmers do not use the artificial hormones, which were first approved by the U.S. Drug Administration in 1993, so the impact on the industry from Wal-Mart's announcement will be incremental rather than dramatic. Mr. Cummins said USDA statistics show 18 per cent of U.S. dairy cows were given artificial hormones in 2006.

David Darr, vice-president of public affairs for Dairy Farmers of America Inc., a major U.S. producer of milk and dairy products, said yesterday that there is already a lot of non-rBST milk available.

"There are more dairy farms across the U.S. that don't use it than do," he said. "And the farms that did use the technology, they did not necessarily use it on every cow."

His firm, a co-operative owned by 18,000 dairy farmers, has members who produce both kinds of milk.

"We continue to try to give our members a choice on what technology they use, and try to find markets for milk however they want to produce it," he said. "But we are also cognizant and recognize the needs of our customers and try to give them what they want."


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080322.RMILK22/EmailTPStory/Business

###

More background:
Recipe for America (on Food Labeling)

Join Family Farmers, Rural Citizens & Consumers in Support of Missouri’s Family Farms, Healthy Food and Rural Values!


Family Farm Lobby Day
(Missouri)

March 31st, 2008

1:30-4PM

State Capitol-First Floor Rotunda

If you oppose your tax-payer dollars subsidizing corporate factory farms…

If you care about preserving the right to know how your food is produced…

If you want to stop the National Animal Identification System (NAIS)…

THEN WE NEED YOU

ON MONDAY, MARCH 31st!

Join Family Farmers, Rural Citizens & Consumers in Support of Missouri’s Family Farms, Healthy Food and Rural Values!

Please let us know if you can attend by emailing us at timgibbons@morural.org, or call (573) 449-1336.

Family Farm Bills of Interest: Please Call Your Representative and Senator!!!

Oppose

CAFO Subsidy--HB 1590 (Rep. Munzlinger):

A portion of HB 1590 would give tax credits to Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) to subsidize their compliance with Managed Environmental Livestock Operation (MELO) standards and odor abatement practices. This is a $1.5 million dollar tax break for CAFOs!

Corporate Welfare at the Expense of Family Farmers and Tax-Payers is Just Plain Wrong!

Oppose

rBGH/BST Labeling Bill--

SB 1279 (Sen. Clemens) & HB 2283 (Rep. Cunningham-145):

These bills would ban any type of labeling that enables consumers to know if their dairy products contain rBGH, a genetically engineered hormone that induces cows to produce more milk. This bill is being pushed by Monsanto (the producer of rBGH) in many states, and Missouri is the next target.

This Bill is Anti-Farmer, Anti-Consumer and Anti-Business! This is not only an issue of free speech for farmers, but also a corporate and government intrusion into the business relationship between farmer and consumer.

Support

Local Control Bill--HB 1931 (Rep. Harris-23)

HB 1931 provides greater power to rural communities to protect their interests from the negative impacts of CAFOs. This bill gives local residents the power to decide where CAFOs are going to be allowed.

It only makes sense to give family farmers and rural property owners a say in matters that affect their property rights and the health of their families and communities.

Support

Raw Milk Bill--HB 1901 (Rep. Harris-110):

HB 1901 clarifies Missouri Statutes to ensure that farmers can continue to market raw milk to consumers.

Preserve the Right of Farmers to Sell and Consumers to Buy Raw Milk.

Support

National Animal Identification Bill--SB 931 (Sen. Purgason):

Senate Bill 931 would limit Missouri's participation in NAIS. SB 931 has passed the Senate and is currently in the House.

Missouri’s Family Farmers believe it is extremely important to ensure consumer confidence in the safety and health of the U.S. food supply while at the same time ensuring the economic viability of independent livestock producers...

But NAIS does not meet the needs of producers or consumers.

The majority of family farmers in Missouri are opposed to NAIS.

For More Information Contact:

The Missouri Rural Crisis Center

1108 Rangeline Street

Columbia, MO 65201

(573) 449-1336


Truth in Labeling - NEXT!! - My Missouri Milk Makes Monsanto Mad

Protect the Rights of Farmers and Consumers

House Bill 2283 (Missouri), introduced by Rep. Mike Cunningham, would ban any type of labeling that enables consumers to know if their dairy products contain rBGH, a genetically engineered hormone that induces cows to produce more milk.

This bill is being pushed by Monsanto (the producer of rBGH) in many states, and Missouri is the next target.

This Bill is Anti-Farmer, Anti-Consumer and Anti-Business!

Farmers have the right to let consumers know what is in their food and how it is produced.

This is not only an issue of free speech for farmers, but also a corporate and government intrusion into the business relationship between farmer and consumer.


Tell Missouri Legislators to...
Vote NO on House Bill 2283!

Call Rep. Cunningham and all Co-Sponsors!

See Telephone Numbers Below
Also, Call Your Own Representative!

See All Representatives
and Senators Attached

Sponsor-Representative Mike Cunningham: (573) 751-3819

Co-Sponsors for HB 2283:
Rep. Shane Schoeller: 573-751-2948
Rep. Tom Loehner: 573-751-1344
Rep. Brian Munzlinger: 573-751-7985
Rep. Tom Self: 573-751-3971
Rep. John Quinn: 573-751-2917
Rep. Jay Wasson: 573-751-1503
Rep. Barney Joe Fisher: 573-751-5388
Rep. Edward Robb: 573-751-1471
Rep. David Day: 573-751-1446
Rep. Darrell Pollock: 573-751-4451
Rep. Larry Wilson: 573-751-1167
Rep. Steve Hobbs: 573-751-9458
Rep. Mike Dethrow: 573-751-1066
Rep. Raymond 'Ray' Weter: 573-751-2565
Rep. Don Wells: 573-751-1490
Rep. Danielle Moore: 573-751-5226
Rep. Charles Schlottach: 573-751-6668
Rep. Ward Franz: 573-751-1455
Rep. Van Kelly: 573-751-2205
Rep. Maynard Wallace: 573-751-2042
Rep. Ron Richard: 573-751-2173
Rep. Rodney Schad: 573-751-2077
Rep. Bob May: 573-751-5713
Rep. Therese Sander: 573-751-6566
Rep. Ellen Brandom: 573-751-5471
Rep. Michael Parson: 573-751-1347
Rep. Jason Smith: 573-751-1688
Rep. Sally Faith: 573-751-1452
Rep. Jim Guest: 573-751-0246

###
from www.MoRural.org


Preventing the Local Food Movement from Expanding





http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/opinion/01hedin.html

March 1, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor

My Forbidden Fruits (and Vegetables)

Rushford, Minn.

IF you’ve stood in line at a farmers’ market recently, you know that the local food movement is thriving, to the point that small farmers are having a tough time keeping up with the demand.

But consumers who would like to be able to buy local fruits and vegetables not just at farmers’ markets, but also in the produce aisle of their supermarket, will be dismayed to learn that the federal government works deliberately and forcefully to prevent the local food movement from expanding. And the barriers that the United States Department of Agriculture has put in place will be extended when the farm bill that House and Senate negotiators are working on now goes into effect.

As a small organic vegetable producer in southern Minnesota, I know this because my efforts to expand production to meet regional demand have been severely hampered by the Agriculture Department’s commodity farm program. As I’ve looked into the politics behind those restrictions, I’ve come to understand that this is precisely the outcome that the program’s backers in California and Florida have in mind: they want to snuff out the local competition before it even gets started.

Last year, knowing that my own 100 acres wouldn’t be enough to meet demand, I rented 25 acres on two nearby corn farms. I plowed under the alfalfa hay that was established there, and planted watermelons, tomatoes and vegetables for natural-food stores and a community-supported agriculture program.

All went well until early July. That’s when the two landowners discovered that there was a problem with the local office of the Farm Service Administration, the Agriculture Department branch that runs the commodity farm program, and it was going to be expensive to fix.

The commodity farm program effectively forbids farmers who usually grow corn or the other four federally subsidized commodity crops (soybeans, rice, wheat and cotton) from trying fruit and vegetables. Because my watermelons and tomatoes had been planted on “corn base” acres, the Farm Service said, my landlords were out of compliance with the commodity program.

I’ve discovered that typically, a farmer who grows the forbidden fruits and vegetables on corn acreage not only has to give up his subsidy for the year on that acreage, he is also penalized the market value of the illicit crop, and runs the risk that those acres will be permanently ineligible for any subsidies in the future. (The penalties apply only to fruits and vegetables — if the farmer decides to grow another commodity crop, or even nothing at all, there’s no problem.)

In my case, that meant I paid my landlords $8,771 — for one season alone! And this was in a year when the high price of grain meant that only one of the government’s three crop-support programs was in effect; the total bill might be much worse in the future.

In addition, the bureaucratic entanglements that these two farmers faced at the Farm Service office were substantial. The federal farm program is making it next to impossible for farmers to rent land to me to grow fresh organic vegetables.

Why? Because national fruit and vegetable growers based in California, Florida and Texas fear competition from regional producers like myself. Through their control of Congressional delegations from those states, they have been able to virtually monopolize the country’s fresh produce markets.

That’s unfortunate, because small producers will have to expand on a significant scale across the nation if local foods are to continue to enter the mainstream as the public demands. My problems are just the tip of the iceberg.

Last year, Midwestern lawmakers proposed an amendment to the farm bill that would provide some farmers, though only those who supply processors, with some relief from the penalties that I’ve faced — for example, a soybean farmer who wanted to grow tomatoes would give up his usual subsidy on those acres but suffer none of the other penalties. However, the Congressional delegations from the big produce states made the death of what is known as Farm Flex their highest farm bill priority, and so it appears to be going nowhere, except perhaps as a tiny pilot program.

Who pays the price for this senselessness? Certainly I do, as a Midwestern vegetable farmer. But anyone trying to do what I do on, say, wheat acreage in the Dakotas, or rice acreage in Arkansas would face the same penalties. Local and regional fruit and vegetable production will languish anywhere that the commodity program has influence.

Ultimately of course, it is the consumer who will pay the greatest price for this — whether it is in the form of higher prices I will have to charge to absorb the government’s fines, or in the form of less access to the kind of fresh, local produce that the country is crying out for.

Farmers need the choice of what to plant on their farms, and consumers need more farms like mine producing high-quality fresh fruits and vegetables to meet increasing demand from local markets — without the federal government actively discouraging them.