Consumer Group Urges Attention to Existing Rules on rBST Milk Labels
nclnet.org
January 26, 2007
Excerpt…
WASHINGTON, DC — The nation’s oldest consumer group is urging the federal government to get involved in the current controversy surrounding milk labels, saying the practice of unqualified “hormone-free” labels can confuse consumers and may lead them to make purchasing decisions based on incomplete information.
In a letter from National Consumers League President Linda F. Golodner to Dr. Barbara Schneeman, director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements, Golodner expressed the group’s concern over the labeling of milk products as ‘hormone free,’ and ‘rBST free’ citing the FDA’s prior determination that such unqualified labeling appears to be false or misleading for consumers.
Golodner cautioned that recent trends in milk labeling practices regarding rBST, a protein used to increase milk production in dairy cattle, run counter to the FDA’s current position that rBST-treated cows do not produce unhealthy milk.
As currently used, the claims are too vague to be helpful to consumers, and they may lead consumers to pay more. “This practice is in conflict with FDA’s determination that milk from cows treated with rBST is no different, in terms of health and safety, than milk from untreated cows,” wrote Golodner.
The reality, according to NCL, is that all cows contain at least some form of naturally occurring hormones, and producers should not be permitted to attract potential customers with a blanket “hormone-free” label. Rather, existing FDA interpretation of law permits producers to indicate that milk comes from cows not treated with rBST if labels are also qualified to clarify that no significant difference has been shown between milk from rBST- and non-rBST-treated cattle.
As more and more consumers express interest in the origins, additives, and processing of their foods, accurate labeling will be increasingly important….
“FDA in 2003 issued Warning Letters to several milk processors objecting to this practice. Given its recent reappearance and increasing popularity, we suggest that FDA again consider taking action to protect consumers of an essential food,” Golodner wrote.
This article has been provided in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. This material is provided without profit for research and educational purposes. Prior to republication of this material in its entirety we recommend contacting the source for appropriate permissions. Alternatively, publication of an abstract with a link to the originating source page to see the full text is generally allowed.
