Fair warning Monsanto’s treacherous case against Oakhurst

By now even the lactose intolerant are aware of the battle being waged by chemical giant Monsanto Company against the locally owned and operated Oakhurst Dairy over the "hormone-free" label Oakhurst uses on its milk. Monsanto is the sole US producer of the artificial-growth hormone in question, and reportedly doesn’t like the implication that customers should care about — or want to avoid — such a chemical in their dairy products.

Monsanto recently filed for an injunction to prevent Oakhurst from labeling or advertising its milk as hormone-free, based primarily on the fact that Posilac (the hormone’s commercial name) has received full FDA approval. According to the agency, Posicows produce the same exact milk as untreated cows. No difference, no danger.

Monsanto is relying heavily on a set of federal laws known collectively as the Lanham Act, which regulate, among other things, truth in advertising. Specifically, the Monsanto complaint alleges that Oakhurst’s hormone-free label and associated marketing (such as the statement on Oakhurst’s Web site that "We believe, and our farmers agree, that untreated cows are happier, healthier cows.") "misrepresent the nature and qualities of milk produced by cows not supplemented with Posilac."

Though there’s no mention of it in the official court complaint, Monsanto lawyers have also been credited in the Portland Press Herald (July 8) with wanting Oakhurst to follow FDA recommendations that advise: "Any label that says the product is free of artificial hormones should appear in the proper context with accompanying information, such as ‘no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from (hormone)-treated and non-(hormone)-treated cows.’ "

But just as a company isn’t legally required to label its food as genetically engineered (though there have been many attempts in Congress during the past decade to adopt just such a regulation), neither can a company be forced to provide this "accompanying information." The FDA merely recommends such information be included.

Now that’s not to say additional information is a bad thing. The more facts a consumer has, the better — assuming all of those facts are correct, and conveyed within their proper context.

For example: "Our Farmers’ Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones. (According to the US Food and Drug Administration, no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from hormone-treated and non-hormone-treated cows.) (But they’ve been banned in Canada, the European Union, Australia, and New Zealand because of suspected health dangers.)"

Of course, Oakhurst might have to start distributing little booklets with its milk if it’s going to convey information that’s truly useful to the consumer, such as the following excerpt about Monsanto’s growth hormone from a 1999 press release by University of Illinois School of Public Health professor Samuel Epstein, MD.

"By 1989, analysis of available industry information showed clear evidence of adverse veterinary effects, especially reproductive and a high incidence of mastitis [udder infections]. Additionally, Monsanto files, leaked to me from the FDA in October 1989, showed clear evidence of other serious pathology in cows injected with the GE [genetically engineered] hormone. Review of these documents by [Congressman] John Conyers, Chairman of the House Committee on Government Operations, led to the serious accusation that ‘Monsanto and FDA have chosen to suppress and manipulate animal health test data,’ besides data on contamination of GE milk with high levels of the GE hormone."

But if space on the label is tight, the following — from the same 1999 press release — would probably suffice:

"GE milk is entirely different from natural milk: nutritionally; biochemically; pharmacologically; and immunologicaly. It is also contaminated with: pus and antibiotics used to treat mastitis; high levels of the GE hormone; and high levels of the naturally occurring growth factor IGF-1. Elevated levels of IGF-1 in GE milk have been strongly associated with high risks of colon, breast and prostate cancers, besides promoting their invasiveness. However, in spite of such well-documented scientific evidence, the FDA still authorized the sale and marketing of GE milk in 1984, while blocking any labeling."

At the end of the day, only a small population of people can know the truth about Posilac’s effects on cows and humans: those who both understand the science and have access to the relevant documents. But in an instance where harm is even a possibility, we should at least be allowed to make a choice. By pushing for an injunction against Oakhurst, Monsanto is seeking to remove that choice.

Can you imagine a future where multinational companies inject our food supply with any chemical that helps line their pockets, use their government connections to deep-six the knowledge of serious side effects, and push non-GMO (genetically modified organism)producers out of business with their super-seeds and barnyard steroids that sit incognito on our grocery shelves? If Monsanto wins this case, that future may have arrived.

Jess Kilby can be reached at jkilby@phx.com