From Deseret News archives:

Proposed dairy-label change criticized at hearing

Published: Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2008 12:10 a.m. MST
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food is considering a change to dairy labeling that leaves critics with a sour taste in their mouths.

The administrative rule under consideration prohibits companies from making false or misleading statements about milk and dairy products on their packaging. Companies that tout their products free of artificial growth hormone will have to clarify on their packaging that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not found a significant difference between milk from cows that receive the hormone — technically called recombinant bovine growth hormones, or rbGH — and cows that do not.

Under the proposed rule, the state can penalize violators up to $5,500 per occurrence. In addition, dairy permits may be suspended or revoked, and the state may recall misbranded products.

Scientists have disagreed about the safety of rbGH. Farmers in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the European Union are not allowed to use it, according to the Oregon Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility, whose director spoke against the proposed rule at a hearing Tuesday in Salt Lake City.

Story continues below
Yet Utah Commissioner of Agriculture Leonard Blackham said a labeling rule is necessary to prevent consumers from being misled about the conclusions of the FDA, which believes rbGH is not harmful to people. Blackham recalls seeing dairy products in Utah stores stating, "No Hormones!"

"All food from a living organism has hormones," Blackham said.

About 50 people attended Tuesday's hearing; about 20 people — most representing professional and trade associations — spoke to commissioners, mostly in opposition of the proposed rule.

Jim Olsen of the Utah Food Industry Association believes the FDA should be the agency to regulate labeling, not the states.

"We're going to end up with a patchwork of rules that will be a burden for interstate suppliers," he said.

Patty Lovera of Food and Water Watch, which is fighting to remove rbGH from milk, said consumers do not benefit when content on labels is controlled. The group is based in Washington, D.C.

"This is a restriction on commercial speech and unconstitutional," said Caroline Silveira of the Association of Food, Beverage and Consumer Products Cos. in Sacramento, Calif.

"This rule is unnecessary," said Clay Hough of the International Dairy Foods Association, based in Washington. "Utah's consumers are not being misled or cheated. There's no public outcry to change dairy labels."

Recent comments

If every politician was required to read "In Defense of Food" I would...

Grass-Fed Anything is Better | March 1, 2008 at 9:02 a.m.

read the book "In Defense of food: An Eater's manifesto" by Michael...

Eating organic in Delaware | Feb. 29, 2008 at 8:30 a.m.

...if the hormone is safe. The FDA says it is, but they have been...

We just don't know | Feb. 27, 2008 at 8:25 p.m.

previousnext

Latest comments

Gifts for gamers

There are some games I love not on your list. Arkham Asylum for one.

Daughter: Mitchell fed me my pet

Our parents made my brothers help kill and clean our rabbits before we ate...

Why would you keep it open? I would understand if there was a lot of amazing...

The government will run our health care well? Read Reader's Digest, November...

BCS stable at top, Y. up to 14

TCU stomped on the MWC so they are naturally ready to crush Florida, Alabama...

Jazz win 6th in 7 games

could you understand Dave Locke any more than my mom does and she is not even...

Notre Dame fires Weis

Attending the ND/BYU game 3 years ago in south bend, a couple of things stuck...

I missed the game, actually i heard a little bit of Locke on the radio (man...

Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal

quotes were good: Article was dumb and unnecessary.

Understanding translation process

I believe the art depicting Joseph looking at the plates may possibly be...

Advertisements