At 09:26 AM 5/5/97 -0400, David S. Conner wrote:
>It wasn't Monsanto that sued Vermont. It was 2 grocers
>associations: Int'l Dairy Foods Assoc. and Grocery Manufacturers
>of America
>Monsanto did sue a small dairy in Waco TX called Pure Milk and
>Ice Cream who was labeling their products rBST free, claiming
>that it discriminated against their product. But in a
>confidential out of court settlement, Pure Milk was allowed to
>label voluntarily. For a reference, see The Austin
>American-Stateman, June 17, 1995 ("Agreement clears Waco ads")
>DC
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
>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 Sat, 3 May 1997, Teige Davidson wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Current Bills introduced for 1997
>>
>> MA "This milk was produced by cows injected with synthetic BGH."
>>
>> VT Authorize Voluntary Labeling of rBGH products
>> producer affidavit "every milk producer doing business in vermont who
>> desires to sell milk
>> to a handler doing business in vermont shall, by affidavit, notify such
>> handler that such
>> milk is
>> 1) is from cows treated with rBST or
>> 2) is from cows which are no, and have not been with 90 days prior
>> to the
>> notification, treated with rBST, and swears he or she will notify
>> his or her
>> handler at least 90 days befor using rBST in the production of
>> milk by such
>> cows.
>>
>> NJ require distributors to label and keep affidavit and requires labeling
>> of consumer
>> products if it contains rBST
>> (from lexus/nexus)
>>
>> NY also has a bill pending (does anyone know for sure)
>>
>> In addition four states passed laws in 1994.
>>
>> ME (enacted april 12) directs farmer who ue rbst to register that
>> information with the dairies they supply. The state also established a
>> "maine quality seal" label from dairy products produced from cows not
>> treated with rBST.
>>
>> MN (may 11, 1994) authorized a voluntary labeling that state, "milk in
>> this product is from cows not treated with rBGH" and may include the
>> statement "Farmer Certified rBGH-free"
>>
>> VT (april 13, 1994) requires that all dairy products derived from cows
>> treated with rBST be labeled as such.
>>
>> (This one Monsanto knocked down, did they do the same to any other state
>> bills?)
>>
>> WI(april 28, 1994) authorized voluntary labeling claims "Farmer Certified
>> rBGH free"
>>
>> Has any other states tried to have mandatory rBGH labeling?
>>
>> How many states has Monsanto sued other than Veromnt? (would anyone care
>> to elaborate on the Vermont happenings?)
>>
>> If a state doesn't have a voluntary labelling law, are companies free to
>> label their products? Didn't monsanto sue 2 dairies on this in 1994?
>>
>> A question about the mastitis issue. According to an office of technology
>> assessent biotech in 1992, it showed that dairy cow production has
>> increased by 100% since 1950 (per cow from 8000 to 15000 lbs/yr). If that
>> is so (a result of artificial insemination, better feeding and more
>> precise milking times) how did this impact the incidence of mastitis since
>> 1950?
>>
>> I have heard that the national organics standards that is pending is up in
>> the air on whether gmo's can be organic . . . Since rBGH is cleary a
>> hormone, I assume that it is not an issue or is it?
>>
>>
>> Teige Davidson
>> Graduate Student
>> Tufts University
>> School of Nutrition Science & Policy
>> Agriculture, Food & Environment Program
>> Medford, Massachusetts
>>
>>
>
>