In 1993, when the FDA approved rBGH, recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone, for use in dairy cows, our Board of Directors adopted a position of opposition to rBGH, affirmed that we would not use milk and cream from cows treated with rBGH in our products, and voted to pay a premium, above market price, to the family farmers of the St.Alban’s Cooperative who are our sole supplier of milk and cream and who pledge not to use rBGH.
In our view, small family owned farms, using sustainable agricultural practices, are the best way to ensure responsible stewardship of the land, sound animal husbandry practices, minimal use of chemicals and drugs in food production, and healthy rural communities. For these reasons we oppose rBGH. The use of rBGH is inconsistent with everything Ben & Jerry’s stands for. Injecting otherwise healthy cows with genetically engineered growth hormones is, in my view, unnatural, unnecessary and unfair to dairy cows. If rBGH were a medicine that farmers needed to cure a bovine disease that would be one thing. But it is not. It is just a drug that alters the cows’ metabolism so that they produce more milk than they would under natural conditions, even though there is no shortage of milk in this country!
Moreover, even the FDA acknowledged that the use of this laboratory hormone is associated with increased diseases among dairy cattle that include mastitis, or udder infections, cystic ovaries and disorders of the uterus, digestive disorders and more. In our view, rBGH represents a failed application of dairy science and food technology generally.
In addition, we believe that our commitment to natural ingredients and to family farming in Vermont, expressed through our products, our relationship with the St. Alban’s Cooperative and our marketing, is an important part of our marketplace success. We believe our business depends in part on our ability to let our customers know that we oppose the use of rBGH; we want to assure them that our milk and cream do not come from cows treated with this laboratory hormone.
We are not the only ones objecting to the use of rBGH today. In fact, there are many scientists and consumers who oppose rBGH. Some scientists believe that the human health implications have not been adequately studied or resolved. There is also real concern that rBGH leads to greater use of antibiotics that then enter the food supply.
Survey after survey indicates consumers favor labeling that would allow them to distinguish between milk from rBGH treated and untreated cows. In a recent nationwide survey performed by researchers at the Universities of Wisconsin and Oregon, 94 percent of the l,900 respondents favored labeling. In a 1995 survey in Vermont, 90 percent of more than 500 residents surveyed said they wanted milk products labeled so they could tell whether the products came from cows injected with rBGH or not.
The FDA could have satisfied, and we urged them to satisfy, consumer information needs by requiring rBGH labeling. It declined to do so, although it did say that food manufacturers could voluntarily label their products and it issued guidelines for the label. The guidance states that any label must be truthful and not misleading and must include a qualifier. Our label says:"rBGH Free, The family farmers who supply our milk and cream pledge not to treat their cows with recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH). We oppose the use of rBGH even though the FDA has concluded that no significant difference has been shown and no test can now distinguish between milk from rBGH-treated and untreated cows.” We submitted our label to the FDA and received a letter back stating that the FDA had no objection to our label.
While we question the need for the FDA"qualifier"and the ability of any government agency to force a food manufacturer to accept and espouse the FDA’s position on this controversial issue, we have complied with all requirements on our label. We have done so because our main goal is to establish a national rBGH free label so that consumers can start making informed choices.
Despite our willingness to comply with the FDA guidelines and with the requirements of most states, there are four states, including Illinois, which absolutely prohibit us from mentioning rBGH on our labels. For a nationwide distributor of frozen desserts like Ben & Jerry’s, this policy of the State of Illinois and the others means that despite the FDA approval for our label and despite the fact that it could be used in forty-six other states, we cannot include this label on any of our products. It is not realistic for us to produce a different package for Illinois. Thus Illinois’ unreasonable, absolutist policy on rBGH labeling means that Ben & Jerry’s cannot label its products in any consumer market anywhere in the country. That’s why we’re challenging the Chicago and Illinois laws.
The state’s policy makes little sense to us. A great many products are labeled with representations about how the product was produced - or what it contains - none of which the State has targeted for regulatory action. My own experience in the supermarket calls to mind just a few of these products -"kosher"meats, “dolphin safe” tuna, “free-range” chickens, products produced “without animal testing,” “stone ground” wheat flour, and many, many more.
Consumers should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they buy milk from rBGH-treated cows. We believe if they had the information to make the choice, they will not. They are entitled to information to make informed choices. We think it is wrong to withhold information that consumers want, need and are entitled to, and that’s why we’re filing this lawsuit today.
Thank you.
For more information, see the Media Advisory,
or contact us by phone, fax, or snailmail (no e-mail yet, please):