Re: Vissicitudes of BST
David S. Conner (dconner@zoo.uvm.edu)
Thu, 14 Nov 1996 08:19:59 -0500 (EST)
Speaking of labeling, the state law in Vermont was a resounding
flop. It was eventually declared unconstitutional (the judge
said the manufacturer's right not to divulge its production
process was greater than the public's right to know-scary,
huh?). Yet even while it was on the books, only about 10% of
Vermontersboth noticed the label and could correctly identify
what it means. It was a mandatory law that required labels, but
the possible ways of labeling were =so many and so poorly
publicized (it seems) as to be incomprehensible.
The key it seems to me is to implement voluntary BST-free labeling
along with consumer education on the issue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Conner
Center for Rural Studies
207 Morrill Hall, UVM
Burlington, VT 05405
(802) 656-3021
FAX: (802) 656-0776
dconner@zoo.uvm.edu
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, E. Ann Clark wrote:
> Ron: thanks for the copy of Rachel's - I had kept it myself in hopes
> of framing it somewhere prominent on the day BST was finally
> pronounced dead. I keep hoping.
>
> You mention labelling, and I have been surprised at how many people
> outside of the applied agricultural community do not know that the
> milk they are drinking could come from cows dosed with BST, or that
> the tomatoes they are eating could (soon) be FlavrSaver tomatoes etc.
> Everyone seems to assume that a) the government will protect them,
> and b) they will do the "right" and logical thing and label such
> products, just as they now label by country of origin. Wrong on both
> counts. Ann
> ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca
> Dr. E. Ann Clark
> Associate Professor
> Crop Science
> University of Guelph
> Guelph, ON N1G 2W1
> Phone: 519-824-4120 Ext. 2508
> FAX: 519 763-8933
>